So Dems what now with Iraq? What will you do now that you have the (probably) both houses of Congress?

Question

Please no answers like, "well whatever it is it'll be better than Republicans." I'm serious, I would really like to know. Oh by the way, cutting and running will embolden terrorist organizations to think that America is weak and increase the chance that we get hit here. Also, that will pretty much hand over a whole country for terrorists to take over (fortunately most of the dems elected to Congress understand that too). OK, so now what? Any real answers?

Answer 1

it would be foolish to just leave, but we have to get the mechanisms in place so Iraq can fend for themselves and perhaps get the world Community to help

Answer 2

I think they will not worry about Iraq they will most likely worry about the whale population or who will make more money or how to get bush out of office.

By the way thinker if you are not American then shut up and do something else this isn't your problem

I think the Dem will pull out and make things worst. All the dems want to get out anyways so i am sure that is what will happen. Then something like 9-11 will happen again or worst

There are so maynthings going on in Iraq that so many people don't know about. Ans there are things agoing on in the governement that we don't know about. so we might be **** out of luck here it the Dems don't get there heads outs of there buts

Answer 3

I like your "answer now, smartie" attitude. First, tell me what the Republican philosophy is besides "stay the course" oh wait they never said that now, I forgot.

My answer and many dems (although not all. Not all Repubs agree with Bush either) is to have more tactical deployment. Have smaller deployments of more skilled soldiers while training soldiers in Iraq to take care of themselves. Also, don't eliminate the task forces designed to locate and take down top Al Qaeda leaders (as well as other terror leaders) while throwing soldiers without a plan besides "maintain order" into dangerous situations. Also, spend more money on supplies soldiers need and less on wave after wave of less prepared and less safe soldiers. This leads to less death and better results over all.

Answer 4

Now Bush will would desire to be held responsible for the various rediculous blunders, comments, and different foibles he has made. he is going out a lame duck president that's WHAT he merits. What does he take the yank human beings for stupid? i'm Republican and can infrequently look ahead to the subsequent election already...substitute would be very stable for us now. deliver our squaddies returned from the hell hollow destroying them and our morale in Iraq. we don't belong there, do no longer would desire to be there. yet, because of the fact Bush had to attempt to repair issues down there, he despatched needlessly lots of extra human beings to their deaths, that's extra suitable than unlucky. He has some accounting to do now...He has to flow to artwork for particular with the Democrats.

Answer 5

Good question:::::::::::::::::::::::
Ann Coulter

Historic Victory for Diebold!
by Ann Coulter
Posted Nov 08, 2006

















History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.

Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb -- I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.

Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.

Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!

But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.

The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about -- and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Answer 6

ok yes, the terrorists may see america as weak.But you need yo swallow your pride.But i do not see your chances of being attacked incresing.If anything it may calm them down a bit.

Think about it,if someone had invaded your country,completly stuffed it it up,fully destabilised it, you would be pretty pissed right?? you would want to go and blow there country up right,make there citizens suffer? But a new goverenment came in and decided to remove the troops from your country,what would you do then,Would you want to continue to hate the countrey that invaded you? or would you calm down a wee bit,glad that they have left?

Answer 7

sorry billy b, but congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. just like a dem to make an *** of himself...intent on making a point regardless of fact or fiction.

Answer 8

Like the other guy, we can't just cut and leave. But we shouldn't stay there either. I think we need to start reducing the forces...I think we're fighting a war that's not even ours.

Answer 9

yes dan here's a real answer:

the federal government is made up of 3 branches
1 executive
2 legislative
and
3 judicial

the second branch LEGISLATIVE is made up of 2 houses
1 congress
2 senate

if most republicans don't know their government like you, no wonder you lost

Answer 10

may i kindly ask who the hell got the US in that god forsaken predicament you just described in the 1st. place?...don't mean to boil your blood bud..but i think the Dems will sure as hell do better than the Reps...and i ain't even american!