Why won't/can't liberals answer this simple question????

Question

Are you at all upset that your party had not delieved on its campaign promises to end the Iraq war???? They were elected on an anti-war platform and now won't even vote to defund the war. Are you mad that your own party lied to you??? The last time I asked this question I got nothing but angry responses and no one addressed any of these questions in a intelligent mannor.

Oh please zs3000.....please don't stop engaging me????????? You are the prototype for the typical liberal elistis and zs3000....bring our troops home and ending the war are the same thing. If there are no troops in Iraq we couldn't be waging a war. I won't engage you anymore if you don't think your answers through and at least pretend to understand the issue!!!!!

Answer 1

Blood for oil?!?!?

WOW! How misguided are these people.

Answer 2

Ok, you and ZS have obvious issues.

Here's the thing. Yes the Dems got a lot of candidates into office by using a "Withdraw from Iraq" & "We're not Bush" campaign, and you're right. They are not coming through on bringing our troops home.

And why is that? As any 3rd grader can tell you, that's called checks and balances my friend. They knew that Bush controlled the Executive Branch, and could very well be vetoed out despite controlling the Legislative Branch. What they basically did was play people for fools (sorry to put it that way in front of all you Dem supporters). People are not educated enough about our own political system to have known that the Dems dreams of withdrawl was something they would not be able to make due with until 2009. They knew that as long as Bush is in office, they would have opposistion. Why people point a finger at Bush for it now, like he's a sudden obstacle is beyond me? Bush was a factor to consider in that promise when the Dems made it.

It's just more proof that the Dems are just as messed up as the Republicans. Luckily 2008 is right around the corner, and hopefully people vote for the right man in 2008, and don't vote because of what party the candidate belongs to.

Answer 3

No, I am not upset by it. Anyone with knowledge of how the government works knows that Bush will veto any bill to end it. They can only raise the debate about it, not end it. Since they do not have a veto-proof majority (or filibuster proof), it is unreasonable to expect anything other than the debate, which is doing what Democrats want, to pressure individual Republicans to state their opinions, making them answer to their increasingly-anti-war electorate. And its working, moderate Republicans are starting to side with the Democrats, or at the very least, pressure the White House themselves.

Also, the Democrats (the main ones, not the extreme lefties) know that cutting funding entirely is political suicide for themselves.

In short, the Dems are looking good fighting the President and losing, while the Repubs are looking more like they are in a corner, being forced to pick between party loyalty and the desire to be elected again.

At least, thats how the mainstream liberals view it...

- and if the current trend continues, the 2008 election will probably go to the best campaigner and candidate, regardless of war opinion. But the Congressional seats may shift more in the favor of the Dems. If the new president wants anything done, they must compromise on the war.

Answer 4

I'm not aware that there was any campaign promise to end the war. During the campaign, those of us who were active were well aware of how difficult it is to end a war from Congress when the President wants to continue the war.

The specific candidate that I worked for in the election promised, "I support the plan outlined by Congressman and decorated war hero John Murtha. This plan calls for a timeline for the strategic redeployment of American troops and for a series of diplomatic measures aimed at enhancing the capacity of the Iraqis to find a peaceful path to stability. I also support the U.S. pressing other countries to step up to the plate and help commit the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy as security conditions on the ground permit...When I am elected to Congress, I will work with responsible political leaders and military planners to develop a mission that can be accomplished and that leaves Iraq with an opportunity to attain stability without an open-ended commitment of American troops." No promise in there to end the war, and no promise that hasn't been kept.

I remember a conversation with a friend working on the same campaign before the election when I said I thought we were stuck in Iraq until Bush's term was over. I believed that the purpose of a Democratic Congress, along with resuming the proper oversight that never took place under the GOP majority, was preventing Bush from sticking us with another war in Iran. So I don't feel disappointed in what the new Congress has done.

Answer 5

I think it's become apparent that there is no longer an ideological difference between the two major parties. Sure, they talk about Gay rights, abortion, and gun control differently, but these are all ancillary issues that just about every individual disagrees on. It's very clear that politicians do not have to answer to the common people, they answer and do the bidding of their corporate masters. It doesn't matter which party you vote for, they all take money from the same people, and screw us all in the process. No angry response, just a fact. This war was wanted by US construction and energy firms, Israel, and the banking cartels. Simple as that.

Answer 6

Kinda hard when you are passing something, and then the president Veto's it. Something you have to realize is that not everything the senate passes goes through. Also, Democrats did not 'promise' anything. They did not promise to end the war, they said they would do everything they can to bring the troops home, a very different thing, no matter how you spin it.

They did vote to de-fund the war, the President used his veto pen.

Also, one question mark is enough to dictate that a question is just that. Putting 3-4 question marks after every question makes you look young, and quite frankly like your an idiot. Just some friendly advice :).

Also, just because someone rebuts your questions and make a strong point of their own, doesn't mean they are angry.

and yet again, how can you say that no one has addressed any of your questions in AN intelligent manor, when you yourself can't use proper grammar in the first place, or use Check Spelling to correct it.

In the future, I won't indulge you unless you heed these words:

Only a properly asked question warrants answering.
And don't insult half the nations intelligence when you yourself don't seem to have much simply by the way you asked the question.

Answer 7

This mess wasn't made in a day, and it will take time to clean it up. The democratic party is made up of liberals, moderates, and conservatives, by the way, just like the GOP is. Giuliani is pro choice, Arnold is pro choice, Gordon Smith from Oregon is pro whatever you want him to be when an election year is coming up....There are republicans that believe in gun control too. So maybe when you don't brand a group of people as something you obviously don't care for (by the way you ask the question you make that clear) is when you will get an answer that is acceptable to you.

Our party didn't lie to us they just have to get through all the red tape.

Answer 8

I am not upset with the Democrat-controlled House and Senate because the Iraq War is not ended.

My understanding is that Congress produced a bill with a timeline for troop withdrawal but that Bush vetoed it. They have since reached a sort of compromise with Bush to fund the war as long as progress of some sort is being made. It seems to me that they are working pretty hard to end this war.

Answer 9

I'm mad when politicians lie, period. I'm a "liberal" but I like Republican Presidential candidate Sen. Ron Paul from Texas, for example, because he was against the Iraq war from the beginning.

I vote issues, not by party lines. And to be fair, the Democrats in power now just got there, like, a few months ago? And already they've had the president veto a bill that over HALF America supports (withdrawing troops from Iraq)?

How do you feel that President Bush promised "Victory" over 6 years ago and our guys and girls are still dying over there? Or that we were gonna go after Bin Laden?

Answer 10

The Democrats did not campaign to end the war with an abrupt withdrawal. That nonsense was never more than neocon exaggeration.

They are doing exactly what the American people demanded--building a policy structure for withdrawal in an orderly manner that will give the Iraqi government a chance to put its house in order.

But Bush will not negotiate in goood faith--he promised that once already with the study group--and has broken tha tpledge.

And NO ONE (except the neocon propagandists) ever suggested "defunding" the war--at least in any way that would put our troops at more risk than they already are.

So am I mad--Yes--at bush and the extremist right-wing in Congress who are so blinded by their own egos that they would rather see American soldiers die than admit they were wrong.

Answer 11

Absolutely! I'm disgusted and embarrassed by the Democratic party. Theyre pathetic vote-whores, just like all the other politicians, who'll say anything to get elected and dont give a damn about the people or the issues.

Which is why I'm supporting Mike Gravel in the Presidential race, because he has the guts to tell the rest of the Democrats that they have no guts or convictions AND he has passion, honesty and a plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA (Mike Gravel at the 1st Democratic debate)