Or is everthing really going good in Iraq
2007-09-04 02:23:08 · 5 answers · asked by Texas Democrat 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
This is all a shell game, complete with false bottoms and one-way mirrors. Bush handlers knows he has to back down from his "stay the course" runaway war spending for an unwinnable (and unjustifiable) 'war'. But he's stubborn, bull-headed, and isn't about to do that without some face-saving attempts at making it look like he knew what he was doing all along.
Remember, Bush once said he would 'stay the course' even if Laura was the only one who still believed in what he was doing. He won't relinquish his position easily.
So, he makes a 'top secret' trip to Iraq to meet with his security team leaders and - after a few hours on the ground where he exploits the photo-op potential, he then announces that if the "successes" continue, there's a good chance we'll be able to start withdrawing troops!
It's all smoke and mirrors. And, yes, it serves his other purpose: to get another $50 billion that he can pour down this multi-trillion-dollar rat hole, all because his family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, Cheney coveted all of Iraq's OIL, and the giant U.S. Military-industrial complex needed to boost its sagging profits from years of peace.
This immoral 'war' has been about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING from the very first day. Americans were lied to; Congress was hoodwinked; and our valiant U.S. troops were conned into believing they were risking their lives for honorable purpose. In fact, this obscene 'war' is all for the sake of a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists, and power brokers becoming wealthier and more powerful. -RKO- 09/04/07
2007-09-04 03:19:42 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Possibly, but I doubt it. I figure that congress will set out the money in any event. You see, they are obligated now that they 'ok'd' the invasion.That's why it was so critical for the government to be correct in all assessments of their followed policies for/about Iraq. Now that many reasons for going were obviously misguided it will cost even more money as the resolution for that failed state requires our attention. It's kinda the reason people tagged it a quagmire/money pit. Bush is most likely hoping for an opportunity to send some troops home or give more leave to offset the negative impact on voters at home. It's proven that the military is just a tool for Bush. Literally.
2007-09-04 02:35:40 · answer #2 · answered by oldmechanicsrule 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Congress is not going to refuse to fund the troops--simply because they know that, if they did, Bush would just leave them to die without support and supplies just to make political capital.
Bush is trying to head off Congress imposing a mandatory withdrawal timeline. So he's saying he will soon start drawig down the number of troops--the same lie he told in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
2007-09-04 02:38:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it is not going good in Iraq; maybe American forces have obtained remarkable successes, but "the less" is done.
Most of Iraqui territory is insecure for Iraq's people themselves, and of course it's very dangerous for American troupes. I would define this situation with any adjective but good...
I don't know if the congress will give Bush what he needs, let us see...
2007-09-04 02:43:48 · answer #4 · answered by Daniele 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If that's the case then Bush and Congress should be impeached!
2007-09-04 04:51:40 · answer #5 · answered by chuck b 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋