If the dems really are against this war?

Question

If the dems are really against this war should they vote for a bill defunding the war without adding pork to it and leave a withdrawl date off or should they keep playing games with Bush?

Answer 1

No bill comes without Pork, so that is not a suprise that there was pork attached to it. The Repubs. indulged in record-breaking pork since 2000-06, which Bush rubber-stamped right through. It's only the weak-minded that can believe that Bush is vetoeing due to pork rather than just simply ignoring the will of the people.

FYI Bush vetoed his FIRST bill in '06, not exactly checks and balances, eh?

Under Republicans, pork spending has grown by estimates of as much as 600% across ALL spending bills. Nothing better illustrates the meltdown in spending restraint than earmarking, the process by which members secure special pork projects, ex. Alaska's infamous $223 million "bridge to nowhere."
2001-2005 period marks the transformation of the Rep. party from its traditional role as a win-or-lose guardian of limited government to that of a majority government party just as comfortable with big government as the Dems, only with different spending priorities," says Chris DeMuth, pres. of the A.E.I.

http://porkbusters.org/2006/09/republicans_say.php

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0504/051004nj1.htm

Answer 2

Do you believe it would be right to cut off the funds for the troops? Think about that. No funding to even bring them home. That's the way it works. People need to get off their political high horse, stand back, and take a look at what is actually happening.

I think the Dems are giving Iraq some time to get it together. The time element tends to pressure Iraq to move forward in establishing their new government instead of continuing to support the Shiite death squads. They need to work on the policies and security within their country. Stay the course fostered the continuation of bad actions by Iraq's government.

Actually, the surge of troops along with the use of a the threat of a time limit are forcing things to move forward in Iraq.
Isn't that what we all want?

These two elements will work together for the benefit of all concerned. The timing couldn't have been more perfect. In this case, keep your eye on the ball instead of the players.

Pork is in all of these bills whether they're by Republicans or Democrats. That's just the way things have been done for many, many years.

Answer 3

They just made standard political maneuvers, that both parties use whenever something controversial is on the table--and that is actually how are system is built to work. A few senators weren't completely in agreement with the withdrawal ammendments to the bill; as a compromise, programs that their constituents want were reciprocally funded in the bill. Remember, a Congress person's first job is to represent their constituents. Through compromise (you'd think this country had practically forgotten the word), the Democrats were able to get enough votes to pass a funding bill requiring a withdrawal target date. This isn't playing games--it's making policy about funding, just like Congress is supposed to.

Answer 4

Here is the deal, the president is the commander and chief, that means he leads the armed forces. The president can veto what ever bill comes to him but then the house and the senete would need to get a 3/4 majority to pass the bill with out the president and that is not going to happen. The main thing is that they all say one thing and do another.

Answer 5

The only war the dems give a crap about is their war to bring down Bush and his administration. They don't give a popcorn fart about anything else and they sure don't care what it may do to the country in the short or long run, as long as they get the White House back and run congress. It's all, and only, about controlling the power and the money and shoving their secular progressive socialist agenda up America's @$$ whether the majority wants it or not.

Answer 6

All indifferences with the two parties have to be put aside to come up with a solution to get our troops back as early as possible. Dems have to stop talking of not giving the troops money, because it's just going to cause them to be labeled as not supporting the troops, and the Bush administration just has to accept that they really don't know what they are doing in Iraq and that any plan coming from them now is going to be closely scrutinized.

Answer 7

Get a grip. To defund the war they just have to not pass any bill. Their pending bill now funds the war, now it is up to Bush to defund it by vetoing the bill or fund it by signing it.

Answer 8

They are only playing all these games with Bush for political reasons. They have presidential elections to prepare for, remember? It has nothing to do with the good of this country, it's all about winning the elections.

Answer 9

I think you're right. My party needs to stop screwing around and do something that hangs their butts out there. I can't believe all the political gamesmanship that is going on. We just won an election and their already worried about the next one. If they don't get their act together, they will have to worry as they get voted out.

He who hesitates is lost.

Answer 10

The question would be why wait until March 2008 to withdraw? Oh wait isn't that during the election season? Coincidence? I think not lol.