The House passed a resolution to oppose the troop build up but why didn't they give an alternate plan to win

Question

They criticize the President's and Generals' new plan but they don't offer up an alternative that would result in victory. The House and Senate previously passed two resolutions based on reccomendations of two bipartisan congressional committees. Now they pass a symbolic resolution that had bipartisan debate but the wording was solely comprised by the Democrats.

If they don't like the new plan why don't they offer up an alternative?

Answer 1

They don't have a plan to win, they merley wish to give up to the enemy and tell them they are sorry

Answer 2

When our leaders say bi-partisan these days you must take that with a grain of salt. These two parties are bitter toward eachother. They play these silly games. They each have reasons to NOT come up with a plan that would work. This war, while it is claiming American lives every day not to mention costing taxpayers a fortune, is being used to gain leverage. The Republicans would love for the democrats to cut funding to the military in an effort to stop the war because then they could say the democrats dont support the troops, and with democratic figureheads like John Kerry and his comments late last year, they'll make a strong argument. The democrats on the other hand will have control of congress and most likely the presidency after 2008. They know that it would leave a bad taste in peoples' mouths as far as the republicans go if this administration is remembered only for getting us into a war we couldnt win, in turn helping the democrats maintain power for years to come. They both have something to gain by us not winning this war.

Answer 3

The Democrats can't agree on an alternative plan. Some Dems want to pull all the troops out. Some want to stop adding new troops. Some want us to start negotiations with Syria and Iran to find common ground. In other words, the Dems are playing to the press for publicity. They now appear as a do something group about the Iraq War, but in reality it's a shallow attempt to enchance the party image. The truth of the matter is that there is no alternative, at least no one has thought up of a way out of this mess and at the same time to keep oil flowing into this country and to stop what looks like a possible WWIII situation. I'm sure the Dems know full well that pulling all the troops out of Iraq would be the fuse that lights up the powder keg of World War III.

Answer 4

It's because they are mostly interested in a political victory, not a U.S. victory. And it's also because they don't understand the definition of victory.

This is not a war that will produce a clear winner or loser once the "benchmarks" are achieved or missed. This is an ongoing struggle being fought on numerous fronts: radical anti-US and anti-Israel religious extremism, trans-generational sectarian hatred, hunger for regional cultural and political dominance and (of course) trillions of $ in potential fossil fuel reserves and profits.

It's complicated and nuanced. We need to fight for what's right in our world view. But we also need to fight to defend our homeland (and our close allies) from the maniacal attacks spawned by these hotbeds of hatred.

Unfortunately, it's just complicated enough to serve as great fodder for a polarizing political debate. The rules are obvious: boil the struggle down to simplistic soundbites, play on the average American's "I want it now" impatience with the military effort, and minimize any chance for success.

An alternative plan for success would require an admission that the problem at hand is solvable. That doesn't fit with the plan to recapture the White House in 2008.

Answer 5

Because then they would be expected to follow through. Any realistic plan they come up with would show that Bush is on the right path and would expose them as hypocrites. Therefore they are incapable of contriving a plan.
There main goal is to get into the white house not win the war.

They will be against anything Bush has to offer even if it is something they wanted in the past.

They are nothing more than obstructionist and frankly if they had a news letter it should be called Pravda.

Answer 6

Key word:debate
Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.
The civilians can find common ground (like you and I) on about anything. Government isn't so easy to do this. Although they all may agree or disagree on the main topic, they have things twisted and tied tied together to complicate the issue at hand. Can't do one without the other, so being solely comprised is a bit strong when many republicans is on the same page with them.
But I agree, an alternative (back up) should also be in order.

Answer 7

If you ask yourself what the definition of "victory" in this war might possibly be, perhaps you will understand better why nobody has come up with a way to win it. Best we could manage would be to load as much of the blame and costs as possible on the blankety-blanks that started it. Impeachment would be a good start. It will not restore our prestige in the world, it will not restore our armed forces from the effects of being a bunch of occupation troops, but it would be a good start. Get out, apologize to the Iraqi people, and impeach.

Answer 8

They don't have an alternative plan other than to placate the rabidly liberal news media who have incessantly spun the war in a negative way. It's all about Congress members getting re-elected short-term instead of thinking of the consequenses long term for pulling out early. And when they do pull out early any negative things that will occur after that will be further spun by the media and made out to be all because of President Bush.

Answer 9

Everybody wonders why. I honestly don't think they are capable of doing it, it's so much easier to take the easy way out rather than actually do something. You won't see any bipartisan actions on behalf of the Democrats, they are in it for revenge. They spent their whole champaign in the last election bashing and as a result they lost to Bush. They did the same thing with midterms and while they won, they came in with no ideas, or plans, or direction that they've given any consideration to. It will be the same in 2008.

Answer 10

Jesi, That's just it. America got fooled. We (not me) Voted Democrats to control congress. America (not me) Wanted this. The Democrats bashed the war and conviced America to hop on board like the did during Viet Nam. Just becasue Iraq is in a quote-un-quote civil war doesn't mean we did a bad job. we only lost 3,200 soldiers in 4 years. We lost 7,000 in the 1st month of WWII and a total of over 350,000 over 4 years.

The Democrats Don't have a plan. They just want to get out instead of fighting those the terrorist over there. We get out, they will come for us again on our own soil. Part of the probem is Iran is supporting the insurgents. How can some guy stockpile 4 years worth of Weapons and bullets. No-way.. They are getting them from Iran & I wouldn't be surprised to Russia's hand in that too.

Answer 11

That was not the purpose of this resolution, this was a resolution solely to put a shot across the bow of the president. A warning per say. the congress cannot make war policy, that is not their job, they can make recommendations and they do control the funding. This message that they sent to Bush was merely that he really needed to rethink his position or the threat cutting off or lowering the funding for this war could be a real possibility, now one wants this to happen, democrat or repuglican.