Has the Democratic party been handcuffed by their own initial support for the war?

Question

Would Democrats be vigorously pursuing the impeachment of Bush, except for the fact that many of them supported the initial invasion?

Bert, you assume to much about my position on this. It's just a question.

Answer 1

It would help there situation but it doesn't handcuff them, not after almost four years of insanity. I don't like the impeachment idea. I don't like the thought of V.P. Cheney becoming President.

Answer 2

You guys keep saying this, but no matter how much frosting you put on a dog turd, it will NOT become a cupcake.

Dems and the rest of the coutnry were all for invading Afghanistan.

Dems, some Repubs, the UN, Russia, China, France, Italy, Germany, Chad, Upper Volta, the lady who wrote "My Pet Goat", all siad WAIT- dont go into Iraq. GET BIN LADEN, that was supposed to be the reason we were in the Middle East to begin with. We can invade Iraq anytme, but once you DO, thats a broken egg which cant be put back in the shell. Despite all the vile, negative CRAP we were called for speaking up against an Iraqi invasion, all we heard was NUKES NUKES NUKES NUKES, even though just TWO YEARS previous Bush, Rice AND Rumsfeld ALL said Hussein did not have nuclear capability nor the rockets to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Lo and behold, no nukes.

So why dont you get off this "Well Dems voted for it TOO" BS and start facing some reality. Bush and his Klan cooked the intel to get us into Iraq, without the legitimacy of UN or worldwide support. That can only create sympathy for Iraqis as well as resentment against Americans and turn resistance fighters into martyrs.
And you Cons stand there all surprised looking and go ok no nukes ok but theyre in IRAN now we gotta go into Iran and if theyre not there they HAVE to be in the Sudan! YEAH

Answer 3

They supported it because bush sold them a bill of goods.
Edwards has said as much and that he voted for it but he is man enough to say Hey im was wrong and i admit now my vote was a grand mistake. Many Republicans were in the mist also. Carl Rove and his cronies did a spectacular job Rumsfelt was wonderful hey there are more targets in Iraq then in Afganistan. his words.
No man we got duped hell i even belived him my mistake now 3000 are dead for his agenda. What a waste.
We are there now and will never leave We are there to support Isreal we will always be present there. There is no plan other then to get in position. Bush thinks we are so dam dumb that we will never see his agenda he is positoining but he want s the richs that the middle east has./
So impeach naw hell the real evil is Chaney any way let him kill more troops and blame the Dems for not supporting him.

Answer 4

They authorized Bush to go to war after exhausting diplomatic means. He said he would He didn't Their problem is that they trusted Bush at his word.

They aren't vigorously pursuing impeachment because with less than 2 years left (thank the lord!) it would be too big a distraction from undoing the damage already done.

Answer 5

Somewhat

Answer 6

A dirty old man and a little girl hang are hanging out at this oil tank and a truck pulls up to the tank and starts filling. The dirty old man says old shell been fillin that tank every night for 35 years. The little girl replies that must be a really big tank Mr bush. The dirty old man replies no one really knows how deep that tank really does go. wild eyed the girl says wow. one day the dirty old man says to the little girl I will give you that oil tank. but allas a truck comes every night and empties it.

Answer 7

Its only because of the Republican spin machine that they have been handcuffed. I'm betting spring time will, at the very least, bring about investigations.

Answer 8

no democrats supported the initial invasion, they just supported giving bush authority to use force if it was necessary, it wasn't necessary, no WMD were found, bush overstepped his authority

Answer 9

The Democrat strategy on Iraq is finally clear.

We've known all along that they want to cut and run before the job is done. But they've been afraid to confront President Bush directly. Today, Democrat Rep. John Murtha let slip what he and Nancy Pelosi really intend to do, and it is genuinely frightening.

They call it their 'slow-bleed' plan. Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs. They will introduce riders onto bills to prevent certain units from deploying. They will try to limit the President's constitutional power to determine the length and number of deployments. They will attempt to keep the Pentagon from replacing troops who rotate out of Iraq. They may even try to limit how our troops operate by, for example, prohibiting our armed forces from creating and operating bases in Iraq.

'Slow-bleed' is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy. Cutting and running is bad enough. But the Murtha-Pelosi 'slow-bleed' plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq. It will put their lives in far greater danger, as resources slowly dry up. How can our troops operate without bases? How can they fight without backup?

Answer 10

That's a really good question. Unfortunately, you're probably
right. Unless they don't impeach him, simply because they
don't want Cheney to be president.