2007-01-27 10:00:52 · 12 answers · asked by Evita Rodham Clinton 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Because they dont' give a rats butt about anything except the 2008 election now, and its in the interest of the Democratic Party for the bloodshed to continue so they can blame it on Bush and GOP Congressional roadblocks during Hillary campaign in 2008.
2007-01-27 10:06:47 · answer #1 · answered by Like, Uh, Ya Know? 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
By doing so it would definitely add fuel to the republican campaign fire. All I have heard this past year is that Iraq is Bush's Vietnam. Problem with that statement is that the Democrats messed that one up, not the republican president at the end. During the entire Vietnam war the Democrats were in charge of the White house. Then a Republican by the name of Nixon took the helm, however he had his own distractions at the time. Ford got left with dealing with the war and a Democratic congress that decided it would discontinue funding the war. as Yogi Bera would say its like dejavu all over again.
2007-01-27 20:42:59 · answer #2 · answered by envirocowboy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Okay one, they're politicians and they have to try to get votes where ever they can. Two if they stop funding it will undo lots of what has already been done and all the hard work will go in vein. Also they wouldn't be doing anyone any good because the troops would be the ones taking they hit on a lower budget. Just because there's no more money doesn't mean they're gonna stop the war and bring everyone back. Remember military members basically have no rights and they will be used and abused no matter what.
2007-01-27 18:20:12 · answer #3 · answered by pimpintops 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are hypocrites. They want it both ways..they want to make Pres Bush look bad while still maintaining the appearance that they support the troops (which they really do not). Thats how you get this chicken s_it Non Binding Resolution. What a bunch of cowards.
2007-01-27 19:28:41 · answer #4 · answered by mr_methane_gasman 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
first of all we have a hundred and fifty thousand troops in the sand. no sane person can simply cut off support for our loyal soldiars and leave them to cook. second it is us (The U.S.) that led iraq into civil war (With Heavy Democratic support) and we have a responsibility to them as the perpetrators of this crime.
2007-01-27 19:02:49 · answer #5 · answered by Zane R 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because they are gutless unprincipled politicians. They're willing to cut off sending reinforcements and let the troops in the field suffer and use it for political gain. Than to give the troops what they need to win.
2007-01-27 18:09:13 · answer #6 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because nobody, but nobody is going to discontinue funding for the troops stationed there. They may be twits, but they are not complete twits.
-Dio
2007-01-27 18:06:03 · answer #7 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wish that they would. I guess they are reluctant to leave the troops high and dry. They need to tell the President that funding runs out at the end of a specific month and tell him it is time to get out.
2007-01-27 18:06:25 · answer #8 · answered by ROBERT L O 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I find it hillarious LIBERALS thought they were getting a far left group when they voted last November. Seems they are more moderate or conservative than once thought.
2007-01-27 18:04:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If they don't it means they have an ounce of understanding and are not caving to the opinion of the uninformed.
2007-01-27 18:10:33 · answer #10 · answered by DrB 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋