Why did the Democrats back off their insistence on cutting the war budget??

Question

They proposed to cut $20 billion from the budget but flipflopped at the last minute. Good or bad, and why?
PS - YA deleted this question two days ago, saying it was not a question! Then, they too flip flopped. But they would not re-post the question. Only gave me back my points. Hmmmm - what is their political leaning?

Answer 1

Because the democrats like Hillary Clinton voted for the war. The democrats were very much for going to Iraq and then became hypocrite traitors. They know that they can't get away with cutting off funding ....

Here's the proof that democrats are hypocrites & traitorous criminals ..........

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Answer 2

If you stop and think about it no body can cut the funding for the war. If that was done then what happened in Vietnam would happen in Iraq. Our troop,s would not be able to defend themselves and many would be killed trying to leave. Everyone Democrat or Republican understand,s that. All those quotes that were posted are nothing more then words if you look closely you will find the other side has also said the same thing,s. But please don't let common sense stop this blame game. If it did then we might have to take our vote seriously and improve this world for every one. And then what would happen to these two click,s that want to rule the world?

Answer 3

Think it had something to do with the revelation that Bush had actually asked for less than the Pentagon did for the period from 2005-2010.

I don't believe in upping the war budget; I believe in re-distributing it. More for the troops, more for rebuilding (and fulfilling the promises we made in 2003), less waste, make KBR (etc) and the Pentagon more accountable. The Pentagon is definitely spending that money on stuff that has nothing to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are spent down to the penny. We don't need details of war plans or intelligence agency activities, just to know how the money is divvied up.

They're afraid that we would be shocked that the Pentagon pays more for a toilet seat on a jet fighter than a whole year's pay for a US soldier fighting in Iraq. That's why they don't tell us.

I also had a complaint because I had as part of my answer called the anti-American questioner (who was not asking a question but just bashing Americans, as he does in all his "questions" - he calls himself "Sidney Vicious" in case you're interested) a "troll". He/it, in turn, complained to Yahoo. They obviously looked into it because they re-instated my answer yesterday.

Answer 4

The suggestion became in basic terms that a suggestion. whilst it did not seem to have help, it became replaced. Many acts are proposed. some do not even get out of committee. some get via one abode, yet the two get voted down or replaced in the different abode. it fairly is not turn-flopping to alter a suggestion that would not look going everywhere. it fairly is like asserting George Bush turn-flopped in changing direction in Iraq. Even after a funds is approved, that's oftentimes adjusted. case in point, the fee selection for the conflict in Iraq has never been totally funded and maximum federal funds products on no account are.

Answer 5

The deletion happens to Dems and Repubs-I don't see a political agenda.

The Dems backed off because they were being called unpatriotic for cutting funds-really all the can do. I agree that they need the strength to stand up and ignore this crap about being unpatriotic!

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring while in his jail cell during the Nuremberg Trials

Answer 6

They now have a new strategy. Write the law so the war must end if the Iraqi leadership doesn't stop the violence. No $$ cuts if things go well. It supports the surge and makes the president put up or shut up.

Answer 7

They know they don't have the votes in the Senate, so they will push it back to make sure that it can be used as an issue during the Presidential Elections.

Answer 8

It wouldn't pass. The democrats don't have control of 60 seats in the senate.

Answer 9

Because they don't want to be seen as not supporting the troops.