Do you agree that if the Democrats concede anything to Bush at this point they will look weak?

Question

If I had it my way they would pull troops out NOW. But giving him 100B and additional 18 months seems more than a reasonable compromise. Giving anything else is tantamount to supporting the war. Support of the war will get you out of office quick!

To those of you who are in support of the war please oh please sign up. Believe me. They need fresh bodies to difuse roadside bombs. Oh yea..Iraq nor Iran has never attacked the U.S. THey are not a threat.

Answer 1

It is not the question of being weak or guerrilla tactics... the Democrats simply desire that truth must prevail. World over it has been proved that the war was imposed on Iraq for no reason or rhyme. Once it was certified by the UN inspectors that WMD (weapons of mass destruction) did not exist in Iraq... Iraq should have immediately been evacuated of the US forces. It was not done in spite of UN going for it.

USA supported by UK and some allies unilaterally continued bombarding Iraq. The question is not of finances but more of ethics and morality. If the present president continues indulgences that result in huge inflation in USA... who would be responsible for that! The effects of the war do not trickle-down in a day, weeks or months. Sometimes it is years before the effects are felt.

Similar would be the fate of USA. A few years from now... the impact of the war in Iraq would be felt by every single individual residing in USA. Already having lost its face in the international political arena... USA is calling for its doom! Democrats simply want to stop that. They do not want ruin of the country at the hands of the present president and his supporters.

War... in any shape is detrimental to the interests of all involved. USA badly lost in Vietnam. It failed to learn its lessons. The mistake is again being repeated. Democrats truly understand that keeping the US forces in Iraq is not in the best interests of the country. They immediately desire recalling the forces back. More on terrorism - http://www.godrealized.org/what_is_the_cause_of_islamic_terror.html

Answer 2

Did you forget about the deficit. The Democrats didn't take Congress. They have a small majority which isn't filibuster or veto proof. The Republicans and Bush have been working hard to make sure Congress doesn't get much done. As far as the mortgage problems, the lenders got greedy that is really what happened. Giving loans to people who couldn't' t afford them wasn't the intent. Just because they relaxed the standards doesn't mean the lenders had to over appraise property and give adjustable loans with penalties for early withdrawal and other creative loans that made it impossible for most people to keep up. Bush is getting blamed because he has done nothing for the poor and middle class. He has spent the last 8 years taking care of Iraq. This happened while he was president not Clinton. If he thought Clinton's plan wasn't working he should have done something. He did nothing.

Answer 3

They appear weak anyway because they ran their mouth about how they would put bush in is place without thinking about the fact that they couldnt override his veto. Now there is a good chance the dems are going to be split because the most liberal are calling to cut off funding comletely so there is a good chance they are going to fall apart. Bush is too stubborn to pull out and I wouldn't be surprised if he found some other way to fund the troops he is determined enough to siphon it from other programs probably. I think the dems should just give him the money and then with the next bill either cut funding or have the set timeline. I'm not a big fan of the iraq war myself but we are there like it or not and we should give the iraqi gov. a chance because if we leave it in chaos it is going to be bad for them and us(it will make us even more unpopular in world opinion for the libs that keep talking about the polls). It makes no since to have a 6 month timeline to me if it's going to be that short just pull out now what difference will 6 months make the democrats are so stupid! By the way the dems have become so distracted with iraq they probably aren't going to get anything else done so they are wasting their own time and our troops time dragging this out. As far as people who support the war having to sign up, I dont hear the troops complaining about it most of the time if they are interviewed on the news they are upset at anti war people, I have an in law the 82nd airborne in afghanistan now and he said he liked be in iraq better because he was doing something there (he was in al anbar by the way one of the most dangerous). So pipe down and always remember your stupid dems voted to authorize the war and hillary is talking about escalating troop levels in afghanistan if you haven't been paying attention.

Answer 4

I will try to be as objective as possible. They are walking a fine line.

On one hand if they stick to their guns they look strong but at the expense of being accused of putting up a roadblock, and that while Bush may be wrong in keeping the war, they are worse for not giving the troops the funding they need.

On the other hand if they give in they look weak. But that is a better course of action, because with that action they will still have the support of those who want to bring the troops home, and won't have the support of those who want to stay the course. Those who are hardline, stop funding the war now, types will still support the democrats over the republicans regardless of what happens.

The other thing you need to worry about on the demorcratic side is if this congress puts up roadblocks and gets nothing done between now and Nov '08 it hurts their chances for a presidential win. That is what happened to republicans in '94, the country was down on the dems and give the republicans control of congress, and it looked good for their '96 presidential campaign. But because of the fighting the republicans had with Clinton, all the promises they made in 1994 never materialized, so 2 years later Clinton held the White House. If congress gets nothing accomplished and keep stone walling it will eventually come back to haunt them in '08.

Answer 5

This stunt the Democrats are pulling with a time line is going to come back to bite them in the axx. If we pull out it will be at the sacrifice of America's integrity and respect. The nonsectarian government will be massacred as infidels along with solidifying America as the great Satan and betrayer that is the ultimate enemy of all Muslims. If Democrats want that going into office the they are whack. They won't even be able to have time to push the National Socialist Party agenda because they will be fighting terrorist from within and without.

We should occupy and win just like in Germany, Japan, Philippines, Korea etc. and it always went better for their economies. I'm for the Commander because a good leader will do what's right even if it's not popular. It's right to protect the non sectarian government so that they can learn to live and work together showing extremists that governments can work even though people differ.

Answer 6

Thats the problem in a nutshell-noone wants to appear weak, ever, at anytime. it has become almost a phobia inside the beltway. If you have an intractable enemy that consistantly threatens the stability and security of a region and your country, walking away from a fight is the short term feel good answer. The problem is someday, maybe tomorrow, you are going to eventually have to face your adversary somewhere, sometime. If the enemy is relentless, as he appears to be in this case, your desire to avoid conflict is a pipedream based on desires not real world scenerios and he will teach you the folly of your imaginations sooner rather then later. While I agree that most Americans have no stomach for a fight that last over 2 weeks or, God forbid, actual casualties, a principled politician will maintain his stance even in the face of stiff opposition, at least thats what we all "say" we want out of our leadership. Maintaining your position in office should be a minor consideration, at least that's what we like to tell ourselves. In reality we want our politicians very malable so they can sway and bend to the political winds. We say we distain that type of wishy-washy attitude but in reality that only applies if someone other then we vote for has that trait. Right and wrong really have nothing to do with it. True christians "love their neighbors." That includes caring what happens to the millions of Iraqis who we have freed from bondage. It is their human right to be free and our human responsiblility to help them. Many "christian" folks I know merely pay lip service to this concept. This commandment is only brought up when it suits their pruposes. Poor souls. The horrible truth is most of us really don't give a damn about a car bomber using two kids as bait to blow up a whole passal of people just doing their daily market run. The only time we really care is if we are disturbed out of our daily stupers by something that actually has the potential to disrupt our prescious lives such as 9-11 and then only for a very short time. We are reactionary rather then deliberative. Hopefully as we age our reactions won't be slowed to the point of mortal slumber, unable and unwilling to defend liberty for any reason.

Answer 7

I really don't care who looks weak and who looks strong. Truth be told, we can't pull out of Iraq until we fix the mess that we have created. Now that being said, I think they need to sit down and hammer out some type of an agreement that both sides can live with and that will help us fix this mess.

Everyone needs to stop worrying about who is right and who is wrong and get the job done. There are innocent people dieing everyday over there and we need to straighten this whole mess up.

Answer 8

They're going to have to compromise on some things. They've got a tight rope to walk-- they cut funding and they're anti-troop. They give funding w/out some strings attached and they enable more loser behavior by the administration. Realistically, congress has to fund for at least some time-- there is inertia in spending (e.g. 130k toops on the ground don't just teleport back to the US).

Bush has next to nothing to lose. There's no cred, low poll numbers, things can't get much worse. The dems are most at risk here.

Answer 9

They have painted themselves in a corner, they ran on pulling he troops out now, and they have done it, a funding bill that they tried to give a time line on and fill with PORK, vetoed! Now they are afraid that this war will last through the Presidential election and that If they take the white house they will be the bad guy in either staying there, or getting out! I love it and may vote democratic just to see it!

Answer 10

Yep, they sure will.

But, they've done it to themselves by not engaging Bush and compromising. They gave him a bill they KNEW he would veto, in attempt to force his hand. Now that it IS vetoed, they have two options:

1) Keep pressing on the surrender in Iraq and lose congressional seats and the White House in '08, or

2) compromise with him, look weak, and lose congressional seats and the White House in '08.