Chicken Doves

At some point it boils down to one of two options: (1) pushing for a bill with a firm withdrawal date and hoping that continuing to hold votes on a bill will somehow garner a veto-proof majority in the Senate wherein 17 Republicans cross over; or (2) passing no legislation whatsoever and thereby cutting off all funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Opting to do neither seems perfectly reasonable because (1) isn't happening and (2) is reckless.
 
RStringfield said:
Why would the American people have sided with Bush? What is it that makes you know this?
Click to expand...
I just said the Bush Kool Aid drinkers and that would have been enough, I think, to paint the Dems as not caring for the safety of our troops. The truth of the matter is you can't refuse to fund the troops while they are in harms way because as soon as they start dying and there is no funding the one that cut the funding is going to get the blame
 
Socrtease said:
I just said the Bush Kool Aid drinkers and that would have been enough, I think, to paint the Dems as not caring for the safety of our troops. The truth of the matter is you can't refuse to fund the troops while they are in harms way because as soon as they start dying and there is no funding the one that cut the funding is going to get the blame
Click to expand...

You said the people would believe it.

and pretty soon people would be believing it instead of saying "Bush can bring them home"
Click to expand...

I am not sure you are wrong, but I don't see why you are necessarily right. The Dems would not have refused to fund the troops. The President would have been rejecting their funding.
 
of course they are left wing and everybody calls dem men pussies because untill I switched they all were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top