why don't the democrats deny funding for additional troops?

Question

How can they say that these additional troups are not in the national interest, but then allow the Presidento spend money on it when they have the authority to stop it?

Answer 1

Bush can send them even if they don't fund them.. then we'd have undfunded troops running around in Iraq.. not good for them.. and they won't do that to our boys.

Answer 2

there replaced into in no way any doubt that our troops could get the investment we want. The timetable is a manner of slapping Bush interior the pinnacle that the certainty is, maximum people desire some variety of circulate in the direction of getting our troops out of Iraq so we will not could waste greater lives or money on Bush's folly.

Answer 3

I applaud the Democrats for not rushing into Washington to just end the war, although they may very well eventually cut funding. I don't think they want to deal with the reality of our army not having the supplies it needs.

Answer 4

Because they are happy to sit on the sidelines. If Bush fails, they can claim they opposed the escalation of the war and told him not to. If he succeeds, they claim they kept funding the war so they always supported "the troops."

Answer 5

because it would look too bad. they're in a tough spot because that would end the war, but it would make it hard for them to say they support our troops when they just refused to give them armor, guns and food.

i wish they would ignore what is popular and do what is right, but no one is immune to peer pressure. all we can do is try to let them know what we want them to do.

Answer 6

One reason to vote against the failed 2 party system.

Answer 7

They are giving Bush a chance to do the right thing, again. He won't though.

Answer 8

Because they don't mean what they say.