Is it because there aren't enough of the little war mongrels who are willing to put their lives where their mouths are, so the military doesn't have enough support to let the troops spend some time home?
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/senate-blocks-bill-on-iraq-combat-tours/n20070919181409990035
Senate Blocks Bill on Iraq Combat Tours - AOL News
2007-09-20 13:29:15 · 9 answers · asked by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
McCain said that the it isn't Congress' job to make rules regarding the military. I guess he's never read the US Constitution, because that is exactly what it says that Congress is supposed to do in Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1
LII: Constitution
2007-09-20 13:43:09 · update #1
Vanilla, Jim Webb sponsored this bill. You don't know squat! Do some research on him. Look up the definitions for liberal and conservative. And try to come to an understand of who is really being conservative. Use you brain for something.
2007-09-21 04:21:43 · update #2
check the riders the dems added
2007-09-20 13:35:50 · answer #1 · answered by John C 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
"Support the troops" is for bumper stickers and smearing your opponents.
The neo-con solution is to have these people hurry up and win, then they can come home and be with their families. Until the soldiers win the war, bring democracy and stability to Iraq, Iran, and Syria, cure AIDS and find Natalie Holloway, then they don't deserve to come home. It's all on them, there is no responsibility of the civilian "leadership" to win the war.
The soldiers have done their job and need a rest, it is well past time to look to the president and the congress for some leadership in this regard.
Talk is cheap when you say you support the troops, actions speak volumes.
2007-09-20 13:52:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
A volunteer army is necessary to protect the gene pool of the future leaders, doctors, politicians, scientists, educators, etc.
Ugly thought but true. You take away the volunteer army, and then you put the children of the elite in harm's way.
2007-09-20 13:41:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe the time will come when these particular Senators will be unceremoniously shown the door because of this. The Conservative base will not show up to re-elect them, making them vulnerable in re-election bids.
2007-09-20 13:37:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If this bill was blocked it wasn't for your reasons. It was purely a political move by the Democrats to bring out just such a response from people like you.
2007-09-20 14:01:45 · answer #5 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The liberal version of how to fight a war:
One year at war, one year at home.
They cried "there aren't enough troops". Now they want to reduce the troops by having a year long furlow.
And you guys wonder why GWB beat you twice?
2007-09-20 13:41:56 · answer #6 · answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well at least the dem's do right? Kind of like when Dick Durbin compared them to Nazis, or when Kerry said the ones who are not smart end up in Iraq.
2007-09-20 13:38:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
republicans do support the troops they have nice looking bumper sticks with catchy slogans. after all thoes troops are a bunch of whiny cry babies, that want to have time off, have fully funded VA benefits, have proper equipment to fight. gee-sh who do they think they are.
2007-09-20 13:41:50 · answer #8 · answered by luis s 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
there is a typo in your question -- you spelled democrat wrong
2007-09-20 13:39:23 · answer #9 · answered by bluekitty1541 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋