I have seen a lot of attacks on Bush's policies but I have yet to here a viable solution to the current situation. Are they going to tell us what this plan of theirs is or are they going to keep it as a carrot on a stick until they are elected and then tell us.
2007-01-31 22:43:49 · 16 answers · asked by pretender59321 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
TECHX if these people ran on the premise that they had a solution I think they should have at least had ablue print ready
2007-01-31 22:54:35 · update #1
Plankshee your's is the type of answer I am used to getting. Instead of, insulting my intelligence and running off a list of names, why not just state the gyst of the plans instead of feeling that I am attacking democrats.
2007-01-31 23:09:38 · update #2
R J see above
2007-01-31 23:10:44 · update #3
As for where I get my information, I get it right here. I don't like listening to Politicians and Newscasters because they filter everything and place their own personal spin bias on it.
I mean if Bush announced free ice cream for all socially disadvantaged people you would hear other Politicians and News Casters saying Bush doesn't care about people who don't like Ice Cream, That Bush is up to something, Ice Cream gate and the like.
If Hillary Clinton said she was going to abolish the vile and corrupt and disgusting family court system, You'd have people screaming that Hillary was just trying to get elected, that she doesn't care etc.
2007-01-31 23:33:02 · update #4
As a party no, however some of the presidential candidates have put forth some ideas. Honestly they don't intend to do anything in the next year that will be measurable.
The dems plan to get another full election cycle out of "running against Bush" so they don't have to have a platform or stand for anything.
2007-01-31 22:57:19 · answer #1 · answered by Malikail 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
You have got to turn off Faux news and get some real information, there are several proposals on the table some are being joined by repuglicans. The plan is to get us out of Iraq in a reasonable time frame, by trying to bring others into the region into it to help stabilize the situation. That seems more reasonable then to escalate the war by putting even more troops in harms way. One thing for sure stay the course is not an option because it hasn't worked in 6 years.
2007-02-01 00:10:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
properly its wonderful they finally hanged Saddam. ought to someone replace him is the question.it really is the reason the warriors are nonetheless there. And plus like the Philippines the U. S. should be attempting to regulate Iraq as a Democratic u . s . a . with guidelines given via the U. S. for Iraq to adhere to and also have a US base there. The Democrats should be considering the losses of conflict. yet in hardship-free words the lifeless see the proper of conflict.
2016-12-03 07:45:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Opposing ideas have been proposed. Barack Obama introduced a bill the other day that would begin a phased withdrawal in May. Many Democratic Congressmen have supported phased withdrawals. The only problem is that it's not promoted heavily enough.
The current plan does not work. We should just continue to use a failing solution, just because it's the most-publicized option.
2007-01-31 22:53:17 · answer #4 · answered by amg503 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Most likely will impose a timetable placed on the Iraqi government to firm up their armies and police forces, put pressure on insurgency groups to stop their mutual attacks against one another & to take over defense of their own country. Obama has introduced a bill called the Iraqi De-escalation Bill, which gives them until March 2008 to take over military activities in their own country. Some others, like Hillary Clinton, wants a pullout timetable of between 6-12 months. Both Republicans and Democrats are compromising on resolutions (Sen Warner of VA, McCain of AZ, Obama of IL) for US withdrawl of troops before the 2008 elections. If Bush fails to move by that time, expect Congress to cutoff funding for any new troops buildup campaigns. The senate will have to work together since one party doesn't have enough votes to overturn Bush's moves. They need 67 votes to overturn a Bush veto of any resolutions he doesn't like. Meanwhile, it only takes 60 votes to start a filibuster. That's all we need--more hot air.
2007-01-31 22:53:19 · answer #5 · answered by gone 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Dem's plan is to withdraw from Iraq and redeploy our troops to places like Afghanistan and Kuwait
2007-01-31 23:54:32 · answer #6 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Where do you go for information ? There are several plans out there offered by Democrats. Perhaps you may want to be more attentive to current events. Pelosi, Kuchinich, Murtha, Biden, and quite a few others have all submitted proposals for Iraq. I guess as you said, its easier to blindly criticize.
2007-01-31 22:56:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
They're throwing some thoughts against the wall to see if any will stick, however as in 06 they won't committ to anything, till after the election. We know what they want to do...run!
2007-01-31 22:50:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Georgie boy and his ilk have had six years to put us in a world of sh
2007-01-31 22:51:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Yes .... there plan is to surrender, and run with our tails between our legs so that there can be a bloodbath like the world has never seen. it would be the ultimate victory for liberals to have America defeated in this way.
2007-01-31 23:16:33 · answer #10 · answered by jack_scar_action_hero 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋