Why is Nancy Pelosi refusing to allow the Presidents military funding a chance for a vote, does she hate America that much, that she would STARVE hundreds of our troops for political points.
2007-11-09 02:28:16 · 28 answers · asked by DJR 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes.... yes she does. She is what Christians would call the anti-christ.
2007-11-09 02:30:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 8⤋
Why are republicans in favor of warfare welfare? The cut and run saying is garbage. The new slogan for republicans should be spend until the country go bankrupt. Or how about protect corporations at the cost of soldiers lives. By the way its a big LIE that our troops are starving. They eat better than most American children.
Its not cut and run but its stand up for yourself and take responsibility for your own government Iraq.
2007-11-09 10:39:11 · answer #2 · answered by john a 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why does the President insist on staying there after five years? First it was to get Saddam, OK done, then it was til they had elections, OK done, then it was to train the Iraqi police so they could protect their country, well not so done, the first two took a couple of years, the last ones has taken three with no results good enough to leave.
You can hardly call it cut and run when we already won years ago, all it is now is to stop occupying the country and let them work out their now destabilized nation.
The war is over, maybe Bush didn't get what he wanted, but we can't just keep feeding his delusions with our money.
Pelosi, isn't proposing starving anyone, $50 billion isn't starvation rations, but its going to be tied to a gradual withdrawal. That's logical at this point.
2007-11-09 10:35:26 · answer #3 · answered by justa 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Again, when asking a question, one assumes you dont know the answer. However if you include an outrageous reply like "she hates america so much", you show that your mind is set and the question isn't one anymore, but a simple way to criticize whoever you target.
In this case, any decent honest and above all logical politician knows that the immediate withdrawal is the only solution.
The debt stands at over 9 thousand trillions dollars (1 thousand of which is caused by the wars in Iraq and afghan), and iraq itself is in so much trouble because of the US invasion that the sooner they are left to sort it out, the best.
2007-11-09 10:40:46 · answer #4 · answered by theedge 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
As it stands the war is funded for the next year . Any cut backs now would only force some action a year from now to be taken .
Its easy for Bush to go to congress and get all the money he wants to keep it up and running .
2007-11-09 10:33:49 · answer #5 · answered by TroubleMaker 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"We can not maintain US troops at these levels past March of 2008"
"The military has a short fall of 35,000 Captains"
-Col. Larry Wilkerson-
The new funding plan would give an additional 50 Billion Dollars, but would require Iraqi goverment to assume all combat roles by December of 08 and, insure our troops have an equal amount of time at home as they spend in Iraq. It's about time if you ask me.
2007-11-09 10:36:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
We know we are there for their oil. We don't even need it! We have the technology to use renewable energy. This administration is profiting from the oil revenues. A lot of them are oil people. Also profiting greatly is USSR. And Putin is putting that money into their military. This is lose-lose. People are really suffering and dying, Iraqis and those from the countries involved in the occupation. Wake up! It's about their oil.
2007-11-09 10:47:35 · answer #7 · answered by Sarah E M 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Those who cannot learn from
history are doomed to repeat it.
- George Santayana
Unless we tighten our resolve and stand firmly against terrorists, they'll visit us here again. We either fight them over there or we invite them to come back here.
If, for example, we pull out of Iraq, ask yourself what those terrorist will do with the oil revenue Iraq produces? It sure won't be used for humanitarian purposes. They want to murder anyone who disagrees with them.
The enemy within, however, threatens our security more than the terrorists threaten it. When Congress, for instants, thought political one-up-man-ship was more important than funding for our brave men and women in harms way, they stabbed our troops in the back. Nothing like giving comfort to our enemy.
The most asinine statement I've heard politicians make:
We support the troops ... but we don't support the war.
That's like saying:
We love this great nation ... but we don't care if it survives.
USMCstin..., I thank you for your service to this great nation.
2007-11-09 18:46:06 · answer #8 · answered by David G 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We'd all be more than happy to FEED them here at home,
When someone...Anyone, can spell out to me exactly what a victory is in Iraq is, how we'll know when we achieve it, show me a plan to get there, and show progress toward the plan....I'll support it....but if we are going to simply stay there to stay there...... I want our troops out of harms way.
P.S. Getting your soldiers out of a no win situation is not cut and run...If you disagree with that then youd also have to say that Reagan was guilty of cut and run when we pulled out of Lebanon....Reagan was a great president and wasnt willing to kill off his military men and women in a no win situatiohn
2007-11-09 10:33:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Do you have an extra two hours this morning? Watch this movie and see exactly what George Bush has done. He's not mentioned until Part 3, but by then you'll be thoroughly intrigued that it will appall you once you do learn. Perhaps then you will understand.
2007-11-09 10:35:44 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Whatever they think would get the most votes. When there is a Dem president they will change their tune.
2007-11-09 13:45:06 · answer #11 · answered by Bleh! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋