Why is it that Democrat politicians and liberals focus on everything but what we need to do to win the war?

Question

on terror?

The things that they focus on are in the past and cannot be changed or not relevant to winning the war. Pulling out of Iraq is not winning the war, it is quiting. What about a plan to deal with Iran? Negotiating will not work.

All I hear about is

1. Bush lied about WMD's
2. Bush invaded Iraq for oil
3. We need sanctions on Iran (even though they never work)
4. Bush is spying on Americans

The list goes on and on.

Our goal in Iraq is to get the Iraqi people sufficient enough to take care of themselves. There may be violence when we give them control. We are not there to be the police, only help them to get on their own feet. That is the President's plan and has been followed.

Answer 1

They focus on what will get them into power not what is good for the country. Since they don't have any ideas the only thing they can do is attack the policies of the current administration. It is a win win situation for them because when they get into power and their ideas don't work all they have to do is blame Bush ( even though he is gone). Blame Blame Blame For the next 10 years at least they will blame Bush. Probably for the next 100.Don't em ember how many years they blamed Reagan for everything? Think about it. They blamed Reagan even though his policies worked and he brought down the Soviet Union

Answer 2

You re obviously a Republican; and I am a non-party guy. While it sounds logical that we should focus on winning this ongoing war, it is also important to know if this war started with a good reason. I don't believe that President Bush lied about WMDs - he was possibly mislead by confidential reports or by people with the wrong interests in Iraq. It is a good sign that the U.S government did not fabricate evidence regarding Iraq's having WMDs and that shows the honesty and sincerity of our President and our government.

It is not too late to do some damage control; however, in my opinion, this war is not winnable. Americans are not welcomed there, the reason is simple: would you like to have Iraqi troops on American soil? Even if the came to topple George Bush and this would make happy Democrats, I think patriotism will tell those Democrats that they should fight against the Iraqi invaders first, because it is our country, not theirs. - The reverse is the same. Uninvited guests should find where the back exit is before deciding to get in from the front.

Answer 3

I want to ask you a question. If you owned a company and the CEO made disastrous mistakes would you b e concerned with those mistakes or would you say what's been done is done and forget about what he has done and would you let him to continue to run the company? People talk about his disastrous decisions to force change. I do not trust Bush to take care of Iran if he could not defeat a country with one third of the population and a fraction of the economic output. Iraq's military was desimated a decade earlier, Iraq's economy was destroyed by decade long sanctions and Bush still failed. Do you want him to invade Iran? IF he did that the Shias will turn on the US and 130,000 soldiers will be trapped in Iraq. We need to continue to remind people of Bush's mistakes so they will not forget and this will prevent Bush from destroying our country.

You ask what we need to do to win the war but I want someone to define win.

Is winning removing Saddam?

Is winning establishing a dictator that is our lap dog similar to the Shah in Iran?

IS winning creating a democracy where Iraqis, the Suni, the Shia, and the Kerds sit in a circle and sing kumbaya?

What is win besides a word used to sell a failed policy? We do not even know what winning is so how can this administration design a policy for something it has never defined?

Why do Republicans say we need to win but they cannot even tell me the definition so I will know when we have won? When the first Bush entered into a war he said the objective was to get Saddam out of Iraq and when that was accomplished we won. The crappy Bush told us we were going to get rid of Saddam's WMD program, he did not have one so is this winning?

Answer 4

Democrat politicians want to focus only on the negative things so that they can make the Bush administration, as well as the Republicans look bad. It is as simple as that.

It is funny how they want to support one thing, then turn right around and not support it because they think that it is not going to be a popular choice and that it will hinder them from getting higher into office or even get them removed from thier office that they already hold.

It is impossible to believe that the Liberals that voted for us to go to war did not know what they were voting on. Now they say that they were given wrong intelligence and that they never would have supported the war there if there was only "assumptions" of WMD there. Funny thing is, that is the exact thing that Bill Clinton said when he ordered the cruise misiles to be launched. He said there is evidence of them having materials to make WMD. He didn't say that there actually was.

Then they go about saying that it wasn't an act of warfare like what we are going through now. I'm sorry, but if a Navy ship fires off a missile at a military target, is that not an act of war?

Either way, they just want to focus on the bad things and only put out to the public the bad things that are out there to support their cause. That they can end the war in Iraq. They can control Iran and Korea.

Yea sure buddy..

Answer 5

The war in iraq cannot be "won"; it was bush's revenge against Hussain for attempting to kill Bush I. Iraq is a factioned country, never a united nation except under totalarian rule. They are still a tribal culture, with many different tribes and clans and the war will not be won. It will continue to be a area of great unrest, as it was when the British tried to shape the area into a nation over 50 years ago. Actually Saddam Hussain was the only one successfully able to unify the nation, though of course with many people being killed or tortured--though not to the extent of the deaths that are now occuring since we eliminated Saddam.

Answer 6

I've said it a million times... but you don't want to know... and DON'T CARE... that much is painfully obvious...

but... here's a quick overview on how to REALLY win the war ON TERROR...

1. attack TERROR leaders... Osama mainly since 9-11 was the cause of the War on Terror... and not stopping at anything until you get him... and making heavy stikes on many al-queda positions in several countries including Pakistan, Somalia and possibly Saudi and Iran... both air and on the ground

2. basically go through the 9-11 report and tell every country that had any links to it... if anything like this happens again... and your name comes up again... you will become a U.S. state... and the nuclear option will be on the table... this includes Saudi, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Indonesia and many others...

3. Iraq DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU DESTROY THE TERRORIST LEADERSHIP... they can't take over a country if they don't exist... only a fool tries to fight on terrorist terms and that's just what Republicans are doing... no real action taken against overall terrorist leaders, but we're just sitting in Iraq waiting for them to attack us... and they have an infinite number of sheep herders willing to strap a bomb on themselves...

Answer 7

Well
Four things:

1. Bush lied about WMD's
2. Bush invaded Iraq for oil
3. We need sanctions on Iran (even though they never work)
4. Bush is spying on Americans

And let's see what Bush decides he is going to do about his war. I still don't know why we are there. I will be waiting for his speech. Why do Republicans expect Democrats to rescue them?

This war on terror is a bogus scam, they way it is being fought now. We don't need a war on American civil rights at the same time.

Answer 8

I don't hear much about how to win the war from the other side, either. "Stay the course" is not a strategy. Neither is "cut-and-run". The problem is that both sides are too busy warring with each other to focus on trying to find a winnable strategy in Iraq. And, in the meantime, our brave men and women in uniform are paying the price.

As far as your "negotiating will not work" comment, how do we know this? It has never been tried by this administration.

Iraq was not part of the "war on terror" until we made it so. Instead of focussing our energies where the terrorists were, we gave them a new training ground and thousands (if not millions) of willing recruits.

If we want to win the "war on terror", we need to attack the terrorist leadership (in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia) instead of trying to take down the wave after wave of new recruits (in Iraq). Once you chop off the head, the body dies. Remember bin Laden? Where is he now? Not in Iraq.

Answer 9

I see that the re-establishment of integrity and dignity in our Congress can't come soon enough for you either.

There is no winning this war--or the war on terror--period. 15 Saudi's with box cutters in not something you can overcome through military action overseas. What sense could that possibly make?

Trying to set up a permanent American Embassy complete with McDonald's and and creating 14 permanent basis is quite opposite of the President's declaration that we aren't trying to install a permanent presence.

Having Iraq's oil infastructure and production controlled by American Oil Conglomerates without Iraqi control is Bush's plan for winning. It's never gonna happen. Stay tuned for the truth--

Answer 10

Democrats & Liberals are obviously too intimidated by the job the Republicans have done of winning the war to venture an opinion on how to do it. The cowards have also failed to criticize the fact that of the 90,000 homeowners in New Orleans who qualify for Federal grants the first day of 2007 sees a whopping 97 actually funded... the snivelers cant match that kind of whirlwind efficiency and they know it.