Do Democrat leaders support ANY military efforts in the war on Terror?

Question

Do they support Afghanistan?

Do Democrat leaders support our war in Afghanistan - haven't really seen a straight answer yet from either side?

DKlyde - instead of insulting me, why don't you offer proof (quotes, citations, etc.) that the Democrats support the war in Afghanistan.

IRAQ, IRAQ, IRAQ. Is that all that is in your liberal playbook? Thomas Ricks, of The Washington Post, said this just FOUR weeks after we invaded Afghanistan. One week after that, we toppled the Taliban in Kabul - while his article was rotting in your compost heap!

The first time liberals had a kind word for the war in Afghanistan was when they needed to pretend to support some war in order to attack the war in Iraq with greater vigor. To get them to support the Iraq war, all we have to do is attack Iran.

Answer 1

I believe that the left just doesn't want the U.S. to win. I know that sounds kooky, and it would take hundreds of pages to explain, but I'll take a brief stab at an explanation.

The greatest part of the left's desire is that we all live with one world government. That is why there is no difference between what the UN says and what the left says. Neither is for world peace. They are for making everything equal. They must bring us down and lift the weak up.

How else do you explain the 'world' reaction to Hezbollah vs Israel conflict. Hezbollah clearly started it, yet Israel was the bad guy. Hezbollah claims victory and wins the concern and sympathy of the world community, while Israel is put in a corner and let on their own. Why isn't the peacekeeping mission deployed to Israel instead of Lebanon?

The one world govt seeks massive redistribution of wealth, strength, and the benefit of the doubt.

Conservatives answer to America's president while the left answers to what they see as their higher power, the UN.

Democrats do not support ANY military efforts in the war on terror. according to them, the whole thing is our fault!

Answer 2

Afghanistan is where the people that attacked us are located.
There are approximately 20,000 troupes there.

Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11 and we have sent 140,000 troupes there.

The only thing Iraq has to do with the war on terror is now, due to our arrogant invasion and occupation, a big recruiting tool for terrorists and as such has done nothing except decrease national security by increasing the number and unity of the terrorists.

We have seven times the number of troupes in the deception war than what we have in the actual war on terror.

No WMD, no nukes, no hostile acts against it's neighbors, no terrorists before we invaded, Bush's excuse for why we are in Iraq shifts as often as the sand in the desert.

Answer 3

Why no longer!! regardless of each and every thing we've a President with none war journey sending the troops to war! A president who did no longer difficulty listening to Colon Powell, somebody with a ton of war journey, whilst he informed him to no longer flow into Iraq!! Barack has to offer human beings in congress to back him up for this degree to flow forward!!

Answer 4

Absolutely. In fact, the Democrats are fully aware that the TRUE War on Terror begins in Afghanistan, and in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

However, now that we are fully engaged in Iraq, we have to come up with a PLAN to deal with it. A real PLAN is not "adapting our tactics."

No less a diehard Republican than James Baker has concluded that "victory" is not as viable an option as "stability" in Iraq, and we need to begin thinking in those terms. This would involve meeting with military officials and asking for ALL of their inputs, not just cherrypicking what you want to hear in order to reinforce your beliefs, as this administration has done time and time again.

And I mean, really listen to what our military leaders are saying:

"Until we back up and assess what we have gotten ourselves into, I fear we will see a repeat of the war in Vietnam. Our military will again fight a series of battles and engagements in Iraq without the overall purpose that a good campaign plan provides."
-- Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, who recently called for firing Rumsfeld.

"First, you have to think big. Not stupid big, the way Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld do, but smart big the way Teddy Roosevelt used to do."
-- Retired Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Gen. Colin Powell at the State Department in President Bush's first term and now an outspoken critic of the administration's policies in Iraq

"We need a leader who understands team work, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation."
-- retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, U.S. Army, on calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation

"Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this."
-- General Eric Ken Shinseki, when asked what would be needed to stabilize a postwar Iraq.

(Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark" and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power.)

Does that sound like "listening to the generals" to you?

Answer 5

There are really no American leaders who are going to support terrorism.
There always is a lot of talk among the parties about what strategies they will pursue.
I just hate the name calling among the populace.
I hate accusations of being non-American.
The candidates are trying to woo your votes.
Stop calling good Americans traitors.
Vote your conscience, once the American people decide, let us see if we can back whoever is the political party leading, until they are voted out again.

Answer 6

Many did not. That's a fact. People made statements on the record, days or weeks into the war, that we were in a quagmire there and couldn't win.

I have a feeling we read the same column this morning. :)

Answer 7

Yes, they do, they're behind the military 100%. Also helping us with this terrorists thng, the democrats don't like terrorists any more than we like having mice in our house(s).
Democrats don't like terrorism any more than than either you or I do. We all hate it.
What a question, do you think the democrats enjoy this terrorism thing? I thnk NOT. Nobody I know likes it.

Answer 8

NO. of course they don't. The muslim extremist have been messing with us for over 40 years. killed robert kennedy, bombed marine barracks in beirut, bombed USS cole, and bombed the world trade center, when slick willie was i office, but what did Clinton do ... nothing absolutely nothing.... low life scummy demoncrats took blood money from Al -Quaida. now they act like 911 was the first time we ever had anything happen and it was Bush's fault.. I know my history... and what did Billy boy do to our military when he was playing round the oval office... cut it to bits ,, slashed our defense fund... sick sick liberals.

Answer 9

Bush is the one who doesn't support fighting terror in Afghanistan!
Remember Osama Bin Laden, genius?

Answer 10

No, they think their great speaking ability will win over the hearts of the terrorists. Most of them are crooked lawyers, you know.