Wouldn't they be better served by funding the war and giving Bush everything he wants? That way, if things don't improve, they would walk into the White House, as public sentiment over the war would continue to fester until 2008. There were 300 killings, in the past week in Iraq, so please don't say that the surge is working and the Dems are trying to tie Bush's hands, as that is not backed up by facts. Bush has gotten all the money he has asked for, and these are the reults:
http://www.yahoo.com/s/544574
2007-03-30 05:44:51 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Thank you. That about says it.
That and Karl Rove planned to use the war as a political weapon in the first place.
2007-03-30 05:50:14 · answer #1 · answered by Da Man 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Good point Steve. There's nothing the Democrats can do that they won't twist to suit their minds. When Congress hadn't done anything but go after a non-binding resolution, they were taunting Democrats for not doing what was expected by those who voted for them. Then when they do what the voters expected of them then they scream the Dems are only doing this for votes and out of revenge towards Bush. It's an easy way to see their mindset, which has become one of hysteria and character assassination lately - it seems that's all they have left in their "arsenal."
2007-03-30 05:56:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush has gotten the money, but the troops are not in place yet. It takes time to move 20,000 people into Iraq. Remember, you are not moving just people, but thousands of trucks, tanks and other equipment. Only about half of the troops are in place. It will be June before the surge is in full effect.
2007-03-30 05:51:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
some are, through fact I certainly have considered them get on YA and say it flat out "i desire we lose this conflict". It makes me honestly ill. Our government could be corrupt yet there is not any longer adequate income the international to get me to talk against our troops. I certainly have relatives there and intensely some the troops are ticked off at left united states of america of america...they say whilst human beings talk out publicly with reference to the conflict that the enemy thinks we are susceptible and steps up the assaults..it actually value lives...i'm additionally uninterested in listening to how that is Bush's conflict..that is Americas conflict..the two facets voted for it (whether the left pushed for it for the previous years earlier Bush took workplace) Now all of unexpected that is Bush's conflict..as quickly as we end our venture effectively then the left will start to declare the victory for themselves...you watch.
2016-10-01 22:50:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a 'wag the dog' concept, in that democrats are trying to end the war ON ACCOUNT of the votes they already received, not the other way around. But they would be correct in thinking that if they do not do what the people of america sent a clear message to do, they will not be voted in again.
2007-03-30 05:55:07 · answer #5 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, I believe the democrats are desperate to have the troops pulled out before they end up being Commander-in-Chief for two reasons:
1) So they can blame the failure on Bush
2) They have no idea how to conduct military matters.
They can train Hillary to salute all they want, she still has not got anywhere near what she needs to be Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military on earth. Add to this that her base is openly and loudly anti-military and you have the recipe for disaster. Obama is pretty much in the same boat but he is a little less dependent on the most vocal leftists.
It also remains to be seen how a Muslim nation would react to a female president. Obama may also irritate them because they probably think he is a christian convert. To hard line Muslims, that is the worst kind of infidel.
.
2007-03-30 05:59:34 · answer #6 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They would be better served in the example you just gave. the media however paints an agenda that is not exactly true. I stopped believing the media in general when I saw how badly they edit what senators say to say something different.
However questioner I would watch the opinion of any conservative that answers this question because they will say just the opposit and may even insult your intelligence.
This may be a good time to consider where are news is really comming from. *cough* agenda *cough* *cough*
2007-03-30 05:51:07 · answer #7 · answered by sunscour 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes the plain obvious truth is that republicans and dems both know we have accomplished our business goals in iraq - the democrats are going to take credit for the withdrawl since it plays to their base while the repubs are going to act outraged since it plays to thier base. The common theme is we are getting played.
2007-03-30 05:50:31 · answer #8 · answered by Nicholas J 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If the Dems had any cojones at all they would put up a bill without any pork that simply de funds the war nothing more nothing less. This is what they campaigned on is'nt it? Answer: they are cowardly, poll watching nitwits who realize the American public would turn on them and see them for the traitors that they are.
2007-03-30 05:50:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yeah...sure... There have also been MORE deaths in the U.S. the past week caused by Illegal Aliens than deaths in Iraq.
Ignorance leads to the same trouble that stupidity does. You need to try to improve both. Your ignorance and your lack of knowledge and understanding.
2007-03-30 05:50:50 · answer #10 · answered by Eric R 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋