2007-08-07 14:49:59 · 21 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
chuloja (below) YES! This is a URANIUM DOCUMENT LIE-BASED-WAR...
What you choose to infer from that is your right to do so. Trust me when I say that I do not stutter...
2007-08-07 15:00:09 · update #1
I wish President Bush would pull all our troupes and completely leave Iraq. Now you Liberals you can defend us on our land.The conservative troupes are tired of your Hippies views. It hurt us in the Sixty's and it will hurt us again with your rantings.I am really sick of this whining.
2007-08-07 15:16:10 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Interesting question. First, you'd have to determine which the "neo-cons" value more: less taxes or a strong democracy and American base in the Middle East.
The latter is one of the reasons offered as the real reason the Bush administration went into Iraq. As we now know, they didn't know very much about the political realities of Iraq -- and they didn't want to hear about them from the State Department.
As for taxes, this administration has from before Day 1 planned to cut taxes proportionally for the benefit of the wealthiest. More: economists looking at the rising deficit and the administration's refusal to back off its tax cuts program have concluded the debt has not been an unfortunate accident; it was planned all along.
Why would an administration plan a deficit this massive? For one thing, such a deficit would prevent future administrations from having the financial wherewithall to reinstate oversight capacity to such agencies as the FDA or the SEC (just two of dozens). This administration has amply demonstrated its belief that oversight is really interference with the corporate mandate to make a profit.
The last 6 years have seen such agencies gutted of manpower, funds, and dedicated leadership. The rising deficit -- and we have not yet seen anywhere near the worst -- will effectively keep government oversight as impotent as this administration has made it.
This is also in tandem with a very successful remake of both the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary who will for decades be supporting any legal challenges to the new status quo.
So: the answer to your question is really part of a larger strategy this administration has pursued steadfastly and successfully.
2007-08-07 15:04:52 · answer #2 · answered by argawarga 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
After approximately one month into this conflict I knew it replaced into mistake. So i've got antagonistic this conflict in simple terms approximately from the beginning up. and that i've got continuously concept that the present technology could pay for the final public of it. especially on condition that it does not look like it could have any genuine income to destiny generations, through fact it is not a conflict on terror. it is instead a mistake. And if extra people who help this conflict had to pay for it, there could be much less help for it. it extremely is the massive reason Bush hasn't made them pay for it. as low through fact the approval is for this conflict now, it is going to truly hit all-time low if individuals honestly had to pay the financial cost.
2016-10-09 11:05:21 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neo-cons would simply try to beat or swindle more money out of working class Americans to make up for their loss.
2007-08-08 01:31:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the wealthier members of this society have so many loopholes and deductions when they file taxes, that they probably pay a disproportionately lesser amount of their income anyhow. but i am sure that they would squeal like orwell's pigs.
perhaps the war would never have started if he couldn't borrow to fund it. i agree that it would be a different situation. good question. when you hear the cons squeal and bring up clinton, you know that you have hit home.
chuloja, the military has been used before. nobody is questioning your ability, professionalism, or patriotic courage.
my stepson is on his second tour now. i volunteered for viet nam. welcome to the club. don't canonize the president. he doesn't deserve it.
2007-08-07 15:02:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If Bush raise taxes maybe we wouldn't have a 9 trillion dollar national debt!!!
2007-08-07 15:01:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Is your point that conservatives dislike taxes, therefore the war is bad? Because I'm pretty sure that doesn't follow.
2007-08-07 15:14:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He can raise my taxes all he wants for the war. I'd rather the money go to that, than some nutty Universal Health plan Hillary has drummed up!
2007-08-07 15:01:08 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
So if this is a lie based war, does that mean all of the military people like myself are dumb mindless followers? I honestly think that this war is going to help the people overseas in the long run, and protect the US now.
2007-08-07 14:54:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
"lie-based war"? You have absolutely no credibility. Your question is actually lie-based. Nice dailykos talking point, there.
2007-08-07 15:01:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋