English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why not make it effective immediately or much sooner if they are so concerned about American soldiers dying in this purported "wasted" effort?

"This war without end has gone on far too long and we're here to end it," Pelosi said.

Why wait a year and a half, Madam Speaker? Election year politics?

2007-03-29 00:26:23 · 17 answers · asked by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

Because they want to use it politically.

If it was really about ending the war, and bringing home the troops, the time-line wouldn't coincide with the election so closely.

Democrats hedging their bets. They want the political credit for bringing home the troops, but want the fallout to occur after the elections.

2007-03-29 00:38:57 · answer #1 · answered by Shrink 5 · 7 0

Because it is the responsible thing to do.

having destroyed their infrastructure and political system through an illigitimate war, we are now responsible for the security of a sovereign nation other than our own. Any fool would know that.

That the Iraqis are not capable of maintaining order or defending themselves from attack from surrounding nations is emminently clear. It is also clear that the US is responsible for that situation.

The Iraqis have had 4 years to get their affairs in order, and today we read that the police participated in revenge slayings. So they've not done what they were tasked to do. This is not our responsibility. They appear culturally unable to grasp the concept of religious tolerance. Remember, these people are *all* muslims.

As for election year politics, this is not an election year, and this is not sitting well with those who naively expect the troops to pack up and leave right away. If we called them home today , it would still take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to get bothe men and materiel home in a safe manner.

In spite of the idiotic partisan chirping taking place on both sides of the aisle, this is the morally responsible way to handle the mess we've created. Now the question is, does the President also have the cojones to do the right thing, or will he once again kneel before his corporate masters and try to continue the largest corporate welfare scam in world history.

I think we all know the answer to that.

2007-03-29 09:00:20 · answer #2 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 0 1

We haven't ended WWII yet. We still have troops all over Europe.The war on terror is unending.As long as Muslims are lied to and indoctrinated into hate the war will exist.
Pols had to buy the votes with pork barrel ear marks. They can defund the war any time they want to. Clinton could have prevented the war altogether. Do you realize the past several wars were all on the Democratic watch.Clinton didn't want that in his legacy.
Most of the people alive today wouldn't be here if we hadn't wasted lives fighting Hitler. Seven Thousand soldiers died just rehearsing for D Day.
When Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt they wandered for forty years. This was so that all of them that were used to idle worship would die a natural death. There children would have no remembrance of idle worship.
Until all the false Mullah's and their robots are eliminated the war on terror will be our only protection.
This is exactly why our for fathers stipulated that our government could not establish a government religion.
If Pelosi successfully defunds this war I suspect the terrorist will head for California and blow up the most decitent of all groups Hollywood.

2007-03-29 08:04:56 · answer #3 · answered by timex846 3 · 1 0

It's a political move plain and simple. One month before the general election. If the President's plan were to succeed in that time, Democrats would say we weren't for a cut and run strategy, that's why we gave the administration time to complete the mission. If things are going bad they will say see we got the troops out because we knew this wouldn't work. Either way it is timed so that their action will be fresh in the minds of voters in the most positive way. Americans in general have short memories and what is relevant today may be completely forgotten a week from now.

2007-03-29 07:35:19 · answer #4 · answered by Bryan 7 · 4 0

I suppose that to NAnZi, political points for democratts are worth more than the lives of a few mostly republican troops.

And never mind that the VAST MAJORITY of those troops want to WIN. They'll go out and find the one or two democratts in the ranks and choose them to put on 60 Socialist Minutes to trash the war.

Ms pisslosi, the people we are fighting have been at war with us for 1400 years give or take a century. What makes you think that pulling out now will change them? In the past, they were pretty much relegated to their own backwards cesspools, but in case you haven't noticed, the islamoviruses have gained the ability to travel to other parts of the world to kill infidels. Do you think they will stop because you send them a basket of flowers?

2007-03-29 10:00:47 · answer #5 · answered by boonietech 5 · 0 0

Its all politics all the time while the people suffer the poor planning and corrective solutions to what the press has shaped as the issues of the day .
The end the war bill has attached to it millions and millions of dollars in pork and ear marks .
This is no longer about sound judgment but rather dollars for programs back home .

2007-03-29 07:31:39 · answer #6 · answered by trouble maker 3 · 2 0

She can bring home a boatload at every whistle stop the Dems Make.

It was the Bold Move to let the troops go home and Vote that allowed Lincoln to Defeat his democratic rival in the second election. She may NOT get what she wants from US!

2007-03-29 07:34:05 · answer #7 · answered by ThorGirl 4 · 1 1

Congress=Democrats
Sept 2008=Presidential election
you do the math

2007-03-29 07:55:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Because whatever Liberal might ends up as President will have time to survey the situation.......Political move!!!
The whole thing, at this point is a Liberal move to secure support for their Losing team

2007-03-29 07:31:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

First and foremost - the House chose September, I believe the Senate version has earlier dates and these will be negotiated; it will not necessarily wind up as September.

Having said that -- I think immediate withdrawal would not have got the votes, they had to go for something that could be passed. By the way, it passed. Majority. Democracy.

Now, if Bush vetoes it, it is on him if the money is cut off. Hard as it will be for him, for the first time in his life, he will have to negotiate, give a little on what he wants. Welcome to democracy Mr. Bush.

It's all political games, but you Cons must really hate it that you no longer make all the rules in the game. Welcome to our democracy.

2007-03-29 07:40:51 · answer #10 · answered by ash 7 · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers