They have the purse string now. Cutting off funding would end this war very quickly.... yet they haven't done it.
Why would the Democrats support the war in the beginning, blame everything that went wrong on Bush, Oppose the war so they could get elected in 2006, and then support the war in 2007 with money while still blaming Bush?
Why would you give money to someone you think of as a murderer to keep on murdering?
Why the hypocricy Dems?
2007-01-19 02:32:09 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
you nailed that one
2007-01-19 02:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Cutting off funding would be a disastrous way to end the war. The war should be ended, but gradually, so we do not throw Iraq into a state of chaos. But then again, I think you know that. Just because the Dems are allowing the funding to continue does not mean they don't oppose the war. They are just trying to find a way to end this thing with the least possible negative consequences. While most Americans are opposed to the war, I don't think hardly any would advocate cutting off funding to our troops.
2007-01-19 02:39:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here's a thought (requires thinking outside the box, so be careful, don't hurt yourself)
Could it possibly be that they truly want want is best for everyone involved? They recognize the mess that we've essentially created and wish to resolve the matter with the least amount of additional casualties. Democrats initially supported the war because they(like most Americans) thought Iraq had funded Al-Queda, and possessed WMD's. I know it is hard to fathom any political party having the people's best interests in mind.
2007-01-19 02:50:38 · answer #3 · answered by T S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Basically, they are allowing the spending because they don't want to bear ANY responsibility if things go wrong there. If they allow the spending and the mission in Iraq fails, they can blame it on Bush. But if they cut off spending, ensuring its failure, they would have to shoulder blame and be accountable for the consequences.
Congress-critters are too yellow-bellied to take that chance, so they whine, "there's nothing we can do" and wash their hands of it.
What I don't understand is why the Dems are being let off the hook for their obvious undermining of the war effort. For 4 years now, they have been vocally opposing everything we've been trying to accomplish, have been acting almost like an enemy propaganda machine, and whose words have succored our enemies and encouraged them to greater efforts. Why does such action not get called for the treason it truly is?
2007-01-19 02:51:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
if only it was that simple. but it is not. we are in the war and can't just walk away and stop funding. SOME dems supported the war in the being based of false infromation that we were given. We are trying to find a good way to leave
2007-01-19 02:37:15 · answer #5 · answered by mrs. smutty aka sodachix 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
one in all our Democratic contributors of the homestead voted "aye" on Public regulation #107-243, the Congressional Authorization For Offensive military Operations hostile to Iraq, as did one in all our Senators from Nevada. They were the in reality Democrats in the Congress or Senate from Nevada who're Democrats. he's the Senate Majority chief. fairly some different Democrats in the homestead and Senate voted "aye" to boot. a lot of them even voted "aye" on Public regulation #one hundred and 5-338, the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. i have protected hyperlinks to both guidelines below. That one from 1998 makes for exciting interpreting because it only had its 10th birthday.
2016-11-25 20:20:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't know that Dems were supporting the war.
2007-01-19 02:35:47 · answer #7 · answered by Miah 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Dude..I'm REPUBLICAN and can honestly say your question is a load of crap.
2007-01-19 02:36:41 · answer #8 · answered by bradxschuman 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋