2007-08-27 02:24:03 · 20 answers · asked by discombobulated 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it has just been a couple of months ago that the cost of the war against terrorism finally cost more money Thain the financial damage done on Sept 11 2001
gee i wonder what the costs would have been if the president would have done nothing like Clinton did the 8 times we were attacked on Clinton's watch
2007-08-27 03:00:51 · answer #1 · answered by mobile auto repair (mr fix it) 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A lot of people haven't fought in wars...that's not the issue. The issue is THIS war. Is it in the interest of the United States as a whole, and more directly in the interest of the american wage-earner who ultimately has to pay for it? By any measure the invasion of Iraq has not in any way made the US safer or more secure. Realistically, it hasn't even made the Iraqis more secure. Tens of thousands of lives later and billions of borrowed dollars down a rathole and bitter political warfare at home is what this war and occupation has cost. The people are divided, the Constitution tattered and the debt mounting; this is the result of this bogus war...not safety or 'freedom' or any of the BS reasons that the Bush Junta has used to justify their incompetent leadership. The only comparison between Iraq and Vietnam is that both of them didn't have to be fought. There may be some excuse for Vietnam...you can make a case for that, but what possible case can you make for the continued occupation of Iraq?
2007-08-27 09:44:06 · answer #2 · answered by Noah H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This man is an embarrassment to anyone with even a hint of common sense. He has stated that we should not have withdrawn from Vietnam, even after 11 years of stalemate or defeat, and 11 years of American blood being spilled in Southeast Asia. I have not heard anyone make this argument in all the years after that tragic war ended.
It is frightening that he is making this comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. Does he also want to shed our blood there for 11, 12 or 20 years? Is this man really that blind to the truth that there will be no "victory" in Iraq?
2007-08-27 09:34:28 · answer #3 · answered by Son of David 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush is a repulsive worm. The pits about this freak is that he will be the first Ex President to have a full Presidential Security staff with him 24/7 to protect him. No President has ever been so hated by his own countrymen.
2007-08-27 09:31:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No
Ask yourself this. If a woman who grew up in a family that plays tennis and she was prepped, trained and groomed to play tennis do you think she is going to go play volleyball?
I view this attitude on the left as being similar to the people at work who question their managers and directors. They will frequently gossip about how so-and-so manager came in late this morning but, have no clue that for the past 5 weekends that manager worked 9 hour Saturdays with no OT pay.
These are the same people that look upon the wealthy with distain with absolutely no knowledge of the MANY long hours they put in college and at work to get to where they are.
Bush was groomed to be a politician. That was his lot in life. Get over it.
Additionally: Those people at work who are always questioning the managers are also those who never move up the ladder and never succeed and always blame everyone but themselves. Furthermore, they call the people who work hard do what they are asked to do and succeed brown-nosers. These are typically people of the liberal/progressive persuasion.
2007-08-27 09:31:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's another spin, to prepare for the discussions with congress by the end of the holidays. He basically sets the stage for an endless occupation and if you are not with him, you are not a patriot (Wonder, if the idea came from Cheney or Wolfowitz)
2007-08-27 09:35:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
well since Bush is on the record saying that the "analogy to vietnam is false" I say it is sad, more than funny
2007-08-27 09:38:03 · answer #7 · answered by shazam 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He fought at home by campaigning and supporting the occupation of Vietnam, just the way we do today.
2007-08-27 09:30:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
During the Viet Nam war Bush was doing drugs, drinking and dodging combat service. His daddy was able to pull strings for him so he didn't have to go.
Makes me sick that he has no problem making other people do what he didn't have the sack to do.
2007-08-27 09:30:34 · answer #9 · answered by katydid 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Who says you have to fight in a war in order to make comparisons? Since when did it become a prerequsite in order to be President you have to have fought in a war?
2007-08-27 09:30:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋