English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

At the start of the Iraqi war, our President stated that "this was going to be a long war." Most of the nation was behind him 100%. What's your problem?

2007-09-15 13:09:49 · 23 answers · asked by TRUE PATRIOT 6 in Politics & Government Politics

23 answers

Liberals can't see more than one day ahead. They are part of the whiny "I want it, and I want it NOW" generation. They want all the poor to have free housing and free healthcare, and darn it, we'll worry about how to pay for it tomorrow or the next day.

President Bush knew that overcoming the crazy Islamics was going to take time. Heck, even I knew that! We still have a presence in Korea, from more than 50 years ago. We still have a presence in Germany, same amount of time.

BOTTOM LINE: NONE of us has access to the same information the President, VP, the Chairman of the JCS, and the Sec'y of State see on a daily basis. So you whiny lefties can call the President all the names you want, put all the pantywaist bumper stickers on your cars that you want, it does not change the fact that WE WERE ATTACKED, UNPROVOKED.

Jeez, I hate liberals.

2007-09-16 13:45:38 · answer #1 · answered by USAisNumber1 3 · 1 0

I don't know where you're getting that "start of the Iraqi war" date, I don't believe this was revealed until much later. I just looked back at the declaration of combat operations and he says no such thing.

Cheney stated we'd be greeted as liberators.
Rumsfeld said it'd last at most six months
They were completely wrong
The president also had no plan in place for post-war operations. I suggest you read Imperial Life in the Emerald City, an excellent book written by a journalist in Iraq alongside the Coalition Provisional Authority. It does not attack Bush but details the lack of planning for what happened in Iraq.

He did say the War on Terror would be long. If you believe the War in Iraq was a reasonable step on defeating terrorism, I'm sorry... but I do see why you want to stay in. I agree that withdrawal is not acceptable, and no one is saying otherwise. Democrats' plans would keep a great deal of troops and contractors in place, not much different from the new Republican strategies.

2007-09-15 20:27:41 · answer #2 · answered by MrPotatoHead 4 · 3 3

I can't answer for liberals but I will answer for myself. I think Americans to understand that Bush has played on their hopes for a good ending and that they need to look at it in a more realistic way. There may be no good ending to the story, not due to failure of our troops or our resolve but due to problems we just may not be able to resolve even in twenty years. They need to make the hard decision of how far they really want to go with this. Once they've done that and set the limit, then maybe we can get to a resolution. How long did Bush mean? I don't think he has ever said.

2007-09-15 20:41:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Bush was elected as a fiscal conservative. Instead, he has taken a budget surplus and created an unprecedented debt. He has repeatedly lied, spun, and twisted the truth to his political advantage. America has been an aggressor and now illegally occupies two countries. Bush has taken precidence from WWII in order to imprisson and torture accused people without due process. His behavior parallels the behavior of Adolf Hitler.

My problem is shared by the majority of Americans. The Bush administration has overextended his powers and consequently attacked and occupied soverign countries and shreded the constitution and the bill of rights.

Our country is slowly transforming to a one of the least free and least democratic countries on the face of the earth. Bush needs to be impeached to restore the balance of power. Otherwise, Hillary is likely to take advantage of the same loopholes.

We need to restore freedom and democracy to this country.

2007-09-15 20:30:13 · answer #4 · answered by Skeptic 7 · 4 2

It's amazing to me that when people answer Y!A politics questions, they automatically believe that the premise of the question is true.

Bush didn't say the war in Iraq was going to be a long war until nearly three years after our troops occupied the country. Read this article for some facts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202296.html

2007-09-15 20:33:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

I seem to remember something being said about a "cake-walk" , being greeted with roses, and Rumsfeld saying it would be over in 6 months

. The "this is going to be a long war" came long after "Mission Accomplished".

Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt longer than six months.”

Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”

Wow, thumbs down. I'm sorry if the facts got in the way...

2007-09-15 21:19:52 · answer #6 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 1 4

You can create a long war with any nation or nations. That doesn't justify it.

2007-09-15 20:41:47 · answer #7 · answered by 1848 3 · 0 1

The long part of the war. Oh and the fact that it is a war which means people, both soldiers and civilians die.

2007-09-15 20:27:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

In response to your inquiry permit me to opine. I do not understand the following:

If we are all in danger from the threat of terror, why is it that only the military has to bare the burden of defending us against this threat?

Why do those who support the war, refuse to support the raising of taxes to pay for the war.

Why doesn't the President implement the Draft if the war on terror is in fact a global one. Wouldn't it stand to reason that we would need more troops?

What is it about the " Long war " that causes you to believe that we can fight a global war with troops that can't contain violence in a single nation, where do you believe the money for the war should come from.

As a devout Democrat who served two tours in Iraq, I will wait patiently for your response.

2007-09-15 20:30:11 · answer #9 · answered by petehill97 2 · 3 5

Must not have been 100% because I wasn't behind him. I knew in my heart it was all wrong to attack Iraq. Now while we are refereeing a civil war and nation building, the terrorists have regrouped and regained the same strength as they had before 911 in Pakistan/Afghanistan being financed by the poppies/heroin crops. Have you read what is happening there lately? That's my problem.

2007-09-15 20:22:58 · answer #10 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 4 4

fedest.com, questions and answers