Can we cut off funding to the democrat party if they keep siding with al Qaeda?

Answer 1

Yes. But who can we get to do this when they seem to be running Congress?

Answer 2

We should not only cut off funding but prosecute some for treason. The guy above me is a little angry and uneducated let me see if I can help. The thousands of people we are killing there are people who are killing innocent Iraqi civilians. They are insurgents from Iran and they are Al Qaeda. Also there is a little payback going on by the Shia to the Sunni's
for 35 years of torture, killings, rapes etc. they carried out under Saddams rule. I don't blame you for being misled. The media doesn't separate the bad people from the good when talking about who was killed they think they are all the same.

Answer 3

No. Political parties are primarily funded by donations, not by the federal government.

And they aren't siding with Al Qaeda, they're just optimizing thier own political position by synergizing with opponents of the Bush administration and leveraging public opinion to create positive change. Or, to put it more blunlty, they want to do as much as they can to make every policy Bush puts forth fail, without any of the blame for that failure sticking to them. If that means an Al Qaeda victory, too bad - as long as Bush takes the heat for it, and they can seize power.

Watch for the same tactics from the Republicans in 2009.

Answer 4

If they ever side with Al Qaeda. So far they have not so I guess you are out of luck.

Answer 5

Oh, come on -- nobody in power wants to get rid of Al Qaeda -- they'd have to create a new boogeyman and that is just too much work.

Answer 6

Can we cut off Republican funding if they keep killing thousands of loyal American men and women; how about if they keep killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis?

And I understand that the Republicans consider anyone other than Americans as sub-human and therefore fully killable in the cause for oil, but I'm not entirely sure God agrees with that. Why don't you ask Pat Robertson or James Dobson; oh right, they are too busy dealing with the gays who are destroying America by doing those things in the privacy of their own home without paying for the meth first (Thank God we have Ted Haggard to show us the way).

Answer 7

I think Bush is the one letting al Qaeda's leader go scott-free. You do remember him don't you, Osama Bin Laden, the guy responsible for 9/11 that Bush promised to get, 'dead or alive'.
Well Bush hasn't delivered, so he is protecting the leader of al Qaeda.

Answer 8

Prove to me in no uncertain terms that the democratic party is doing this and I might think about answering this stupid question.

Answer 9

as long as they have the Hollywood elitist and the likes of George Soros, they do not need you and me. The only way to tell them is at the voting booths. I took part in a democratic poll last week, and they asked questions and then took the answer to ask another question in a way to groom the answer, its called a push poll, they groom the answers they want and then put out "their" results.

Answer 10

This is ridiculous. I can't believe people actually think this way. They do not keep siding with Al Qaeda. Ridiculous.

Answer 11

In EXACT detail, how are democrats "siding" with al Qaeda?

furthermore, PROVE, if you can, that al Qaeda is in Iraq.

.....there are probably more al Qaeda terrorist cells in the UK than there are in Iraq, babe!

I think Bushie & Co. is siding with al Qaeda by not having an immigration policy and not inspecting our ports at all,

they also help harbor terrorists.
why aren't we in Pakistan, where all the terrorists are?