The problem with office-holding Republicans who think this war is a mismanaged and counterproductive mess is that they do not dare speak out against it for fear of political reprisals. Whatever you think of it, the Bush administration is known for playing political hardball - if you get off the bus you'd better be prepared for a lack of support from the national party and administration. DeLay, Rove, and Cheney play rough.
For just one example, take a look at Schlesinger, the guy who the Republicans nominated for the senate in Connecticut. He was quite soft spoken on his support for the President's war during the pre-primary phase - who wouldn't be? the war is very, very unpopular in Connecticut and most of the northeast. When Lieberman lost the nomination to an anti-war Democrat, Bush fell all over himself to say how much he liked Lieberman, tossing poor old Schlesinger right under the bus.
In my state of New Hampshire both congressmen and both senators have privately expressed some reservations about the conduct of the war but have been 100% "behind the President" in public. One of the congressmen is facing a vigorous fight this fall from a strong Democratic candidate and has lately been a little bit more equivocal in his support of the war.
If the war continues and if strong supporters of the Bush policies get hit hard at the polls this fall, you will begin to see more and more equivocation and backpedaling. Very similar things happened from 1966 to 1968 with Democrats who did not suport LBJ's Viet Nam policy and in 1968-1972 with Republicans who did not support Nixon's war policy.
My own view has been that as stupid as it was to begin the Iraqi War, once we were there it would be very difficult to disengage without turning Iraq into "Terroriststan", which it most assuredly wasn't before the US invasion. I've now come around to believing that we must either increase our troop scale by several times and attempt to eradicate the insurrection entirely or get out entirely. The former is politically impossible.
The late Republican Senator George Aiken of Vermont once gave this advice to Nixon about Viet Nam, "Declare victory and get out".
Sounds pretty good today...
2006-08-18 09:22:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by AndyH 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Democrats are same as Republicans via fact the two events seem after the interest people. Democrats agreed with Bush interior the 1st place.to attack Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Now democrats found out that the potential of conflict isn't in want people and on the tip there will be a shameful defeat for marines of their project. Democrats opposed Bush for 2 motives - one to maintain their political place interior US u . s . and yet another one to rescue US military from added injury previous to correctly withdrawal from Iraq and Afghan.
2016-11-04 22:54:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I oppose Iraq and I know some democrats who oppose it and some democrats who want to be there.
Frankly, I don't want to get out... only oppose the war there.
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
Those are two well known Republicans speaking during the Clinton campaign in Bosnia. Notice now how it changes?
Look.... I hate terrorists, I hate Bush, I hate war, I hate people dieing. Frankly, I think that now it's too late to leave and we have to stay the course and clean up our mess, it'll cost a lot but we're hear and we can't be selfish like we were when we went in.
Oh, by the way.
NOTHING IN POLITICS IS 100%. There is stupidity on both sides of the fence. There are stupid liberals and stupid conservatives.
2006-08-16 06:52:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think being for or against the war on Iraq includes both politics and morals. Is it alright to barge into a country when there is no clear reason why?
We were told why, but it wasn't clearly stated exactly why these weapons were suspected, who they were supplied from (there were suspicions, but I'm not sure if this was confirmed even).
What I'm saying is,
some of it has to do with being a democrat or republican, but it's more complicated - so that's why the area might be split on that issue, because I do know republicans (not adults, but young adults) who think the war was unjustified and incredibly annoying, as do I (although I'm neutral)
2006-08-16 06:50:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Almana 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
According to several news polls, between 60% and 75% of Americans opose the war and are ready for the troops to come home. If only Dems opposed the war, then that would imply that between 60 and 75% of Americans are Dems - completely not the case.
As far as the war is concerned, we should have went. Our government made a terrible (and avoidable) mistake. That milk has been spilled. We need to assist in getting a stable government in place as fast as possible, fix the $hit we broke, kill Sadam, and gracefully hand the people back their country. I would even have said, but Sadam back in power, but that relationship is dead. We have killed two of his children and embarassed him beyond repair. If he wasn't trying to kill us before, he most certainly would try after letting him go. He must be executed. Anything less than that is asking for trouble. They are going to have a civil war. It the natural order of things - the strong dominate the weak. We need to back out and let nature run its course.
2006-08-16 06:57:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by s_bodhi 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, my ex-girlfriends best friend was a devout republican per his claiming. He voted for Bush both times, but he did admit Iraq was a mistake and we should get out. See, problem with the Coulters, Limbaugh, and Combs is they like to generalize their statement without backing them up with credible fact. The unfortunate part of this is they have large followings and thus have alot of people believing these fallacies.
2006-08-16 06:53:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There seems to be an agreement among members of the Republican party to create a united front. However, what is said privately can be a totally different issue. Democrats speak to their own conviction. That's why they look so scattered.
2006-08-16 06:54:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by mediahoney 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The whole Muslim world is against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan because innocent lives are been taken and people are loosing families plus there is no need of war in those areas.
2006-08-16 06:55:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Burhan 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No I can think of an instance where a democrat is pro-war, and a republican is anti-war...
(D/I)Joe Lieberman-Pro
(R) John McCain-Anti
However a lot of people on both sides are starting to be anti-war.
2006-08-16 06:57:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by RATM 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dems aren't the only ones who want to get out of Iraq. Most of the military personnel there are Repubs, and I'll bet most of them want out, too.
2006-08-16 06:51:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by mcmustang1992 4
·
0⤊
0⤋