http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
2007-09-11 09:10:17 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I for one believed the General's statement, unlike those that didn't believe him BEFORE he had given the statement.
2007-09-11 09:11:12 · update #1
CHARITY G - Your answer makes me proud... and for the most part, I agree with you :)
2007-09-11 09:37:09 · update #2
We'll probably rely more on the GAO report . . . Most Democrats are o.k. with the progress of the military . . . it's the progress of the Iraqi government that concerns us. Personally, I'm willing to give it three more months . . . if we don't have an agreement on oil rights between the three major factions I am officially getting off the fence on the side of the Liberals.
2007-09-11 09:15:38 · answer #1 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
If you have not been to Iraq then you have no right to call Patraeus a liar. Unless you have seen first hand what is going on over there, then your question is totally illegitimate.
Personally, I have never been there, but I have talked to others that have been. What you read and see in the fly-by media is far from the truth according to my friends who have been there. In their opinion, the general is correct in his assessments. And because I truth my friends, I believe the general.
Heck, it is easier to believe him instead of others who have openly and admittedly lied about many other things. I have to wonder if you actually believe the fly-by media and/or liberal democrats, both admitted and prooven liars.
2007-09-11 16:26:29 · answer #2 · answered by Michael H 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe Bush is only doing this to keep the support of Republicans, and will change the idea once the summer actually rolls around.
2007-09-11 16:25:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Have you even bothered to investigate the criticisms leveled against the report? Movon.org has links to sources that they say support their allegations in the Patraeus and that undermine his assertions. If you question sources from Moveon.org then just use them as a starting place to do your own research. Corroborate the information provided with sources that you trust. Blindly accepting the Patraeus report is as bad, if not worse, that what you're accusing the liberals of doing.
2007-09-11 16:21:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It's not a new proposal. It was slated all along. There was no way the "surge" could be sustained since we don't have the troops to rotate in to replace them.
What Bush is "proposing" was something that was already "proposed" to happen when the idea was conceived.
Putting the number of troops back to the "pre-surge" level tells us nothing.
2007-09-11 16:14:43 · answer #5 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Than they must support more troops if they keep up with their track record.
If Bush says one thing they will say the opposite.
2007-09-11 17:24:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that we will probably remove some troops next summer... but between now and then, we will put a lot more in than we take out then.
I remember Viet Nam very clearly.
2007-09-11 16:13:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
When Bush gets a new idea, on his own, then there will be something to say. Otherwise, all he is doing is going forward with what was already suppose to happen, and playing politics on it, like it was his great, new idea.
2007-09-11 16:16:56 · answer #8 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
They will find some way to negatively spin it. The General and Bush are honorable men and neither have been proven guilty of any lie, unlike some former presidents who lied under oath and were later disbarred!
2007-09-11 16:18:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
You expect anyone to believe what Bush dribbles? Sorry that ship sailed long ago.
2007-09-11 16:16:03 · answer #10 · answered by gone 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋