a. More deaths translate into more political capital for demoncrats.
b. Finally proving Bush is a 'failure' translates into more political capital for demoncrats.
c. Appeasing our enemies comes naturally to them.
d. They are simply traitors.
2007-02-16 02:19:24 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In my opinion--absolutely! They want US defeat in Iraq. There was a day (not to long ago) when his kind of conduct was grounds for treason. I hope every American remembers what is happening right now because I guarantee I will never forget.
2007-02-16 02:27:37 · answer #1 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Because you can't win a war against terror. It's like a war against fear, or a war against mean people. As long as a relatively small group of people feel that they need to impose their beliefs on others, and have zero qualms about the cost of innocent lives, there will always be terror.
p.s. The war in Iraq is not a war against terror, it is the war against East Asia and Eurasia
2007-02-16 02:49:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure what a neo-liberal is, but I think that you are talking about the Democratic party.They don't want to lose the war on terror. They want to win it as fast as possible and the Iraq war is slowing the process down to a crawl.
2007-02-16 02:43:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Congress:
a. is not "neo-liberal"
b. does not have to prove this administrations performance (it speaks for itself)
c. Is not appeasing our enemies, but is doing the will of those who elected them (i.e. the majority of voters)
d. Is very patriotic. (What branch of federal goverment did nothing for Katrina victims and also gave the people of the City of New York incorrect information about air toxicity post WTC attacks?)
2007-02-16 02:26:43 · answer #4 · answered by kobacker59 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
No one wants to lose the "WAR ON TERROR!!!", but obviously the gameplan that the conservatives came up with was weak.
You'd probably be singing a different tune if you had lost a friend/relative in Iraq who was fighting for this ill-conceived crusade.
2007-02-16 02:27:56 · answer #5 · answered by jebudas 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No fair! You took all the good answers.
The Liberals were wrong about the Soviet Union back in the day when the U.S. had the only nukes. They could have issued an ultimatum to the world that no one would ever be allowed to develop nukes. If they tried, we would automatically drop a nuke on their capital city. In return for no one developing nukes, we would promise never to use them ourselves.
Then the Liberals were wrong about the Soviet Union being indestructible. Ronald Reagan made them look like idiots.
Now the Liberals are really under the gun (no pun intended). If democracy starts flourishing in the Middle East, they will look not only stupid, not only out of touch with reality, not only irrelevant, but like they are always on the wrong side of history. People will start making Liberal jokes as vicious as the Polish jokes so common in the 1960s and 1970s.
2007-02-16 02:28:19 · answer #6 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
The war cannot be won by military means. Only through economics and capitulation.
2007-02-16 02:28:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
e. the American people voted them into Congress to put an end to the war.
2007-02-16 02:33:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think they're expecting a bunch of Neo-cons to go down with the sinking ship, and it's beginning to look as though they may have it right...
2007-02-16 02:25:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
It wasn't a "hijacking". The Democrats were elected to Congress. ELECTED. Get over it.
Anyone who seriously thinks the Democrats want to lose the war on terror is either on crack, or they are completely blinded by their obsessive hatred of Democrats.
2007-02-16 02:25:59 · answer #10 · answered by brian2412 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋