Question for mainly Democrats?

Question

I'm seeing all sorts of questions posted slamming Hillary for saying she'll end the war. Why is this? Is that not what we expect from the next President? She won't be sworn in until 1/20/09. Do we expect this war to continue on well into the next decade? Isn't that what the mid-terms were all about - an end to the war? Some soon after were screaming the Dems weren't doing anything. Now a candidate steps up and says she will end this mess if she is elected and she's getting slammed for it? What kind of sense does that make? Don't we WANT this war to end? I'm asking these questions to try and get a sense of whether it is really just Hillary haters that are taking her task for this or is it also those who voted for the Dems in the mid-terms? Thanks for your, hopefully, well thought out answers.

Answer 1

I agree with the results of last Novembers elections along with the American voters. The problem here at Yahoo answers is the Conservative trolling going on that isn't parallel with the American voters wishes. The constant trolling is just more Conservative spam and spin. I am completely on-board with Hillary Clinton and stopping the war, no matter what and working for the peace and diplomacy. The World already blames Bush and the Republicans for the current outcome of the present situation anyway. The Republicans are just trying to spin it around on the Democrats for their failures in Iraq. It sure would have been nice to have a President that had a plan. Bush's mentality is "MY PET GOAT".....

Answer 2

The problem that one must be "electable" is a catch 22 in this climate of 24/7 news. We tax-payers actually pay master spin-meisters at the White House to monitor every critic's utterance and misinterpret it or take it out of context and use it against the person who dares criticize the administration.

Those who criticize Hillary have a point but they forget that "pure as the driven snow" does not get elected president. Smart and politically astute gets elected.

How George W. Bush got elected -- or got into the White House -- is another matter. Theater to stop vote counting in Florida, Supreme Court stacking, voter fraud, swift boating all factor into election contamination as difficult to resolve as Bush's war in Iraq. Bush's war is such a problem that there may be no way out of it. Even though smart and astute doesn't go around starting wars, smart and astute may not be able to end this one. That explains why no one can come up with a plan when Bush whines that none suggests a better alternative than his surge.

All this makes one wonder why smart and astute would want to run for president. Thank goodness for political ambition.l

Answer 3

I cannot speak for others

but in a situation as complicated as this has become, I am instantly suspicious of anyone who wants to make it a black and white issue. One of the NY Times columnists today, notoriously anti-Bush, said that we are at a point where pulling the troops out might not be the answer - and sending troops in might not be the answer.

I remember Nixon promising to end that war - which gave such encouragement to the North Vietnamese that what should have been a withdrawal turned into a rout.

I think everyone wants the war to end - including the current occupant of the White House. I think the difference among thinking people comes when we try to imagine how, and with what long-term result for the people in that region (not just in thatr country). It is a difficult and complicated process, and men and women of good will will disagree over the process.

To make simplistic statements and promises about taking an action (as you rightly point out) that cannot be fulfilled until at least January of 2009 is irresponsible, and makes one wonder about Hillary's priorities - doing the right thing, or responding to the latest poll? More and more people are beginning to feel she is too much of the latter and not enough of the former.

Answer 4

The mid-terms were not necessarily a mandate to end the war as soon as possible. For example, many republicans that were removed from office were removed because of their stance on illegal immigration, implying that the democrat won not because of their party but because their opponent was disliked.

Democrats who want to end the war immediately or otherwise as soon as possible without winning as part of the plan get in trouble because most Americans are not losers.

I'm not going to get into all the details of why we are there and what would happen if we pulled out prematurely because that information is all over the place if you pay attention, but I will say that this war may very well go into 2009. But by then the scene may be much different. It took us much longer to rebuilt Japan and Germany. What's more, in both Germany and Japan many people thought we could not accomplish our goal but we did and both countries are now among the most powerful in the world.

Something else about 2009: Yes, a new president would take office in 2009. However the presidential campaigning will affect how the country sees the war (rightly or wrongly) and this has great influence.

For the record, Hillary Clinton was disliked long before she took a stance on the war. Many people disliked her the moment she attempted to put forth a national healthcare plan. (I thought we elected her husband?) The level of dislike for her has steadily increased since that time in the early 90s.

If you truly believe the war needs to be ended now, email me. Seriously.

Answer 5

You're going to get mixed answers no matter what you ask. I think there's just a lot of lost hope all around that this war mess would ever really end and a lot of lost faith in all politicians on both sides.
If she could end the war, that would be great. I just hope she's not saying bigger words than she can live up to.

Answer 6

Yes 2/3 of Americans want it to end and want us out. Whoever is running best keep this in mind.

Those slamming her are the hate mongers looking for a reason to hate the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is...

Answer 7

As an Independent against this ongoing conflict any politician who steps up to the plate and says the same will get my consideration and one will get my vote. This is not the second world war, this is another snafu just like Vietnam only in the desert. Vote the person and the issue, not the party.

Answer 8

LBJ "offered their vote" (say's Justin Thyme) - via signing the 1964 civil rights act that finally outlawed apartheid in this u . s ... Wow. No ask your self cons are so undesirable at governing. You persons are clueless. As to the question - Abe Lincoln is lifeless and for this reason now no longer a Republican. it relatively is not in basic terms black individuals who help Democrats. it relatively is a majority of working classification people. %. an industry (as nicely perchance truck drivers) the place the low-salary earners are no longer in many cases Democrat. Union workers are yet another large occasion. So there is that actuality. word how mainstream cons talk approximately and regard working people. They thoroughly low-cost their hard artwork and demand relatively everyone in comparison to them are welfare, socialist, u.s. hating, blah, blah, blah blah - mccarthyist rubbish. Btw, have you ever met a Republican? Do you hear to all the 1950's race propaganda those adult males so rejoice with preserving alive an nicely? Hell brother, you relatively sound like a the superb option winger and it shows by your ignorant speech. Republican politicians refuse to publicly meet with the NAACP simply by fact it would desire to offend their base - why is that? You win votes via assembly with people. via chatting with them and via taking their grievances heavily. cutting-side Republicans have by no potential felt the might desire to strengthen that courtesy to minority communities. they like to concentration on their risk-free demographics. Protestant and evangelical churches and corporation proprietors.

Answer 9

Many don't think she has the capacity to end the war. I will vote for her but I'm a bit dubious about her ability to end the invasion of Iraq.

Answer 10

Bombing, demonizing & conquering another country, without provication by the victimised country, is a crime. It doesn't matter wheather the aggression is on behalf of Islamic fundamentalists in a Christian area (such as in former Yugoslavia) or on behalf of God knows what in a Muslim area (like in Iraq) or on behalf of anything in anywhere. It doesn't matter wheather troops of the agressor's army die or not. It is a crime anyway. Penis & Hitlery Clinton should be brought to justice as war criminals, and there is something, which doesn't smell good, in the fact that Hitlery Clinton is a presidential candidate.