2006-08-31 09:57:27 · 12 answers · asked by just me 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is the million dollar question. KUDOS TO YOU.
If they really wanted to stop the war they could vote not to fund it and have the troops home today.
2006-08-31 10:08:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the sheep that vote in this counry would only vote against any anti-war stance the dems take because it is protrayed as being soft, they see it as having two choices.
1. Vote not to fund the war, be bashed for not supporting the troops, not win re-elction, sit at home do nothing, or
2. Vote to give president "control" over war, when it all goes wrong blame it on him, hopefully keep their jobs by showing how enept the president is, get the president out of office.
Problem is that #1 is basicly a sure bet, and the 2nd option could still blow up in their face, but they had to try.
at least thats how i think they felt.
2006-08-31 10:08:41 · answer #2 · answered by therealmikebrown 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clearly SOME Democrats, especially like the FORMER Democrat Lieberman, have to get some guts. Then there is the problem of being a Democrat in Congress where all you have is the power to speak up, but not the power to change anything by law, or even have official oversight hearings on waste and fraud there. And there is a catch-22 in that you don't want the troops to be deprived WHILE THEY ARE THERE, but it IS ENABLING to Dictator Dumbya with money to keep them there. US Taxpayer money continually flows away from the troops and the Iraqi people as intended like water down a hill to the fat pockets of Halliburton, et al. Dictator Dumbya is sticking to the PNAC agenda for Iraq except if he is frog marched out like the arch criminal he is.
2006-08-31 10:17:32 · answer #3 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The vote the Democrats give to fund the war is to support the troops, not the war. The country doesn't need a scenario as it had in the Vietnam Era where the troops in the field suffered as a result of money not being allocated. Yes, the Dems are against the war, but not against the troops and if funding is cut from the troops they would be left to suffer which is even worse than the war itself.
2006-08-31 10:03:58 · answer #4 · answered by The Pineapple 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Democrat party is and continuously has been professional-conflict. they have in basic terms found out a thank you to get anti-conflict voter help mutually as investment a conflict. On a scale of a million-10 for political crafty, i'm going to offer them a 9.
2016-11-06 04:14:21 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because you have to support the troops you send over there with the proper equipment and supplies. Bush is a yellow belly, chicken-sh*t coward who made sure he never served in combat or that any of his daughters, neices or nephews spill any blood for his war. That's why this Democrat bashes him. The Bush crime family are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.
2006-08-31 10:07:23 · answer #6 · answered by Pop D 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
George W. Bush is a moran. He should be impeached, and tried, and convicted of high treason of the United States of America.
2006-09-01 17:25:38 · answer #7 · answered by Jeremy© ® ™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a stupid question. They just can't cut the money off. Nobody is in favor of this war anymore (at least the non-ignorant people). But you can't just stop funding it.
2006-08-31 10:04:16 · answer #8 · answered by miketorse 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
And they say there's difference between democrats and republicans.
2006-08-31 11:29:03 · answer #9 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we have no choice. We 4uked up and we need to clean our mess before we leave iraq.
2006-08-31 10:02:22 · answer #10 · answered by Captain W 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋