How can the Democratic Congress still claim to be serving America's interest by being anti-war when they so

Question

obviosly aren't? If I was anti-war I sure wouldn't give the president one more dime to fund it. However, the dems are rolling out cash to support the war until late '08 at least. If their reasoning for being anti-war is the loss of American lives, and we can't win over there then why fund it one more day. The only reason I can think of is all the sweet pork they can milk out of the budget. In essence all I'm getting out of this is that the Dem's are serving their best interest not ours. Now I know you are all probably just as shocked as I am (dripping with sarcasm.) So tell me Dem's and Libs what do you think of your brilliant plan to put the Dem's in control now? Are we better off for having Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in control? Will you vote for less American interest and more personal gain for politicians in '08 also? I would really hope to get some answers out of Libs here and not a bunch of question dodging, party line, bull. Please answer honestly (if a Lib can.)

Well the first 2 answers copletely dodged the question. Can one Lib give me an answer?

Well at least answer number four gave an effort at a valid answer. I may not agree with him but it is the first time I've had a real answer from a Lib. Thanks for not question dodging. I apreciate your reasonable, civilized, conversation points.

Answer 1

All the libs may learn something if they'll stop spewing anti Bush sentiment long enough to see what their people are doing to this country. It was Winston Churchill who said "if you not a liberal at age 20 you have no heart. If you are not a conservitive at age 40 you have no soul."

Answer 2

The bill funding the war was a compromise in the Democrats eyes. Fund the war, but a time line to get out. Would be nice to see some give on the other side. For the Democrats to stop the funding on the war immediately would be using the Republican plan of legislation, "do it my way or else." I thought most people grew out of that by age 15-16. Maybe you are seeing it the way you want to instead of keeping an open mind.
Look up liberal and conservative in the dictionary when you have a chance. The definition might surprise you.

Answer 3

i'm against war in that it is in many cases an argument generally between ability/land hungry politicians yet i'm much extra against human beings ravenous to dying or going unprotected. 'we are' caught between a rock and a no longer ordinary place. If we in basic terms pull out, then chaos could ensue , relatively some human beings could nevertheless die and we could be particularly plenty responsible for a ton of destruction and dying and not something to prepare for it (i'm conversing approximately them having a different way of existence. i'm professional-environmentalism so i could be completely satisfied if the oil stayed there). If we live and did no longer supply any investment, that they had be out of nutrients and protection. So, what do you think of we ought to continuously do? Face it. Dubya misinformed us (the two intentionally or no longer) into going there w/o bothering to let us know (I doubt he even knew or regarded into it) how long and not ordinary this became into going to be. i comprehend of a few who voted in comparison entire factor yet they do no longer look to be approximately to vote no on investment. they do no longer look to be hypocritical in any respect. they have a coronary heart.

Answer 4

Because if they didn't compromise Bush would keep our young people over there without funding! Why can't the Democrat's support the troupes but oppose the war? The troupes still need to be taken care of! I want to see an end to this war! And a safe return of our troupes!

Answer 5

That's a good question and I woudl say that the simplest answer is that a bill that said, "All funding is cut off tomorrow and the troops begin coming home tomorrow" would never get anywhere. The pres would veto, and there wouldn't be enough votes to override the veto. Then where would we be?

Answer 6

the dems understand two things.. the first is that even if they cut off funds, the military would still have enough money to continue the war for at least the next two years

and the second is that it wouldnt stop the president anyways.. not having proper equipment for troops didnt stop him from entering iraq, why would it make him leave?

and why would you punish the soldiers by denying them money that may save some of their lives.. its not their fault that they are there

i think they should cut off funds to the secret service and let president bush roll around THIS COUNTRY w/o proper body armor.. and maybe then he could maybe somewhat understand what its like for his soldiers to roll around iraq w/o it

Answer 7

Perhaps if you listen to some news that's not on Fox you will learn that our wonderful country is SICK AND FED UP with Bush and his illegal and immoral war. Doesn't matter though he has stated that he will stay in Iraq even if no one but his wife and his dog agree with him. There are not too many idiots let who still believe in Bush. Most people have seen him for the hubris ruled ego-maniac that he is.

Answer 8

I agree They are all full of it! they should all go and be replaced 1'st graders act better then all of them put together. anti war then what do they have planned for us ? do they have a plan? I say kick their *** in Iraq and Iran

Answer 9

Turn off Fox news immediately. Do it for your own good. And our country's!