will be vetoed by the President will come back to hurt them in the next election? They can't have it both ways...i would respect them more if they voted to not fund the war rather than them playing politics with our soldiers' lives. This is a pure political move by the democrats to try and stay elected. I think it is pathetic.
2007-04-27 06:02:01 · 10 answers · asked by danno 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The Democrats are playing a dangerous game with Iraq. If they want to stop the war, all they have to do is not pass a funding bill. Pelosi has all the power - it's not a matter of overriding a presidential veto if there is no legislation to sign or veto. Just don't pass a funding bill. Setting deadlines is not consistent with a loss - if we have failed, why keep trying? They are illogical.
What they are trying to do instead is KEEP THE WAR GOING but gradually cripple the troops so the US can't win it. That way it stays in the headlines and drags on, with the enemy knowing we want to leave. The strategy of frequent disputes about funding, etc. is tailor-made to sap the morale of the troops and the US public and embolden our enemies. The Democrats NEED to keep US soldiers dying so that they can use it against Republicans - Harry Reid said the war will gain them seats!
And if the troops came home NOW, not only would the war no longer be an issue, but the bloodbath everyone knows is coming would begin far enough in advance of the election for the American electorate to understand how the Democrats caused a genocide. What's the magic of ending the war by Sept 30, 2008? The fiscal year? Give me a break! The Democrats want to take credit for the end of the war, but not blame for the loss.
2007-04-27 06:05:20 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the bill will hurt the Democrats in the next election - but they can do better. Voting to immediately stop funding the war would be impractical - but they could include a provision in the next version of the bill requiring a roll back of the Bush tax cuts to pay for the funding that the President has requested. It is immoral to pass the entire cost of Bush's war on to the next generation.
2007-04-29 05:58:11 · answer #2 · answered by Franklin 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think it will, at least not if things play out the way they expect.
It establishes thier opposition to the war without actually making them clearly culpable for the loss of that war (like simply de-funding would). As long as the war is lost in a timely manner, it's a solid political strategy.
And, yes, they can have it both ways. Passing the 'timetable' sends a clear message to our enemies that America is nearing the limit of it's 'will to fight,' while not overriding the veto (or simply de-funding) shows 'support for the troops.'
2007-04-27 06:32:10 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are in a catch-22.
Caught between the netroot moonbats who are for peace at any price, and those liberals who may not agree with the conduct of the war, or even the war itself, but still are repelled at the idea of the USA going down in defeat.
Welcome to the President's world, Democrats in Congress.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
2007-04-27 06:23:09 · answer #4 · answered by A Balrog of Morgoth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At what point will President Bush heed the will of the majority of American voters and get a clue?
We are unable to fight a civil war of this kind. I've said this before and I'll say it again. It does not matter if we leave today or 20 years from today. They'll kill each other the second we leave.
A timetable isn't going to happen this time, but they will have to come home someday. Just don't get any ideas that things will have improved enough any time this century for a democracy to take hold.
2007-04-27 06:08:59 · answer #5 · answered by Floyd G 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It won't hurt them in next election because the media will cover for them like they always do.
I agree with you that they should have voted to completely defund the war if they truly believed that would make the US safer.
Instead, Dems attached almost $30B in pork spending to this bill. Their leadership had to buy votes and it wasn't cheap.
2007-04-27 06:10:36 · answer #6 · answered by nosf37 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You-like Bush--underestimate the intelligence of the Amrican people. I'll spell it out for you:
1)The American people--and Congress--have made their disapproval of Bush's war crystal clear.
2) The Democrats recognize that we can't end the war overnight--instead they wanted a clear--and bingind--committment to pull our troops out
3)They areNOT, however, going to allow the troops to suffer due to Bush's arrogance.
4) So Bush will get his money--without a timetable.
And the American people know that the only reason we are still stuck in Iraq is because Bush held the welfare of our troops as hostage to squeeze the money out o fCongress. Because, unlike Bush and his apologists, the American people really do care about our troops.
2007-04-27 06:35:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree. If the dems conviction is the war is lost then stop funding a lost war.
2007-04-27 06:16:44 · answer #8 · answered by JB 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Screw the Iraqis suitable? I advise we don't desire them to have an truly self-ruled u . s . we basically desire their oil and we can stay till the final drop is in Chevron's (Condi Rice's previous boss) barrels/pipeline. Be real...did the Iraqi human beings invite us in there in the 1st place?
2016-10-13 22:15:07 · answer #9 · answered by quellette 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, it got to me when Hillary said that bill is "the will of the people." It's not my will! I agree with you totally, but if the people who voted for them didn't think this was coming, they should have.
2007-04-27 06:10:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋