Why won't the Democrats bring the soldiers home?

Question

The Democrats all promise that when they become President, they will bring the troops home in one fashion or another. They constantly demand that the troops come home "now" and they criticize Bush for not bringing them home.

Isn't this a bit hypocritical? They control both houses of congress. Why don't they introduce a bill to make it illegal to keep troops in Iraq? Why don't they introduce a bill to rescind the authorization for the War? Why don't they simply vote to stop the funding, requiring the troops to come home?

Is it that they want it both ways? It seems to me that they want to jump up and down about the war, but not really do anything about it.

Put your money where your mouth is Democrats! If you really think we should be out. Then vote that way.

Obstructionist republicans? I'll point out that DEMOCRATS voted to continue the funding just the other day! They could end this thing NOW and there's nothing the Republicans can do about it. But they won't even introduce a bill to end the iraq war - and they keep crowing about how the November elections were a mandate to get us out of Iraq!

happy4u -- I do watch the news and read the newspaper. I hear Democrat Congressmen running for President say "get our troops out now" and not ONE of them has sponsored a bill to make it a crime for the President to keep our troops there. Why?

Garth -- not sure what you mean. The Democrats haven't introduced a bill to make it illegal to keep the troops there, and they haven't cut off the funding. Why not?

Lame Duck -- don't be silly -- the Congress GAVE the President authorization to go into Iraq in the first place. Google Iraq War Resolution (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502). Congress has the power to rescind that resolution if they want to. Not ONE Democrat has tried to introduce a bill doing that -- not even one has even tried. Congress also has the power to make it a crime to keep the troops there. Not ONE Democrat has introduced a bill to do that. And Congress has the power to cut off funding today - if they would just vote to cut off the funding. So why don't they do it?

Nikaay -- the President can only veto something that has already passed the Congress. The Democrats aren't even introducing any bills to vote on the issue. And why wouldn't the Democrats want to put the President to the test? The Democrats say they have a mandate from the people to get us out of Iraq. So, let's make it clear who wants us out, and who wants us in. Pass a law requiring the troops to come home and then call on the people to demand the President not veto it. If they did that, and the President still vetoed, then at least the Democrats could say they did everything they could, and a Presidential veto can be overturned by a 2/3 majority in Congress. The troops will never come home if the Democrats don't try -- and they haven't -- all they've done is b!tched and moaned. DO SOMETHING!

Blue ridge -- you are correct. However, the Democrats have the power NOW, today, to bring the troops home. And they are saying that that is what they want to do. Yet, they aren't even trying. Not one bill has been introduced. Lot's of speeches by Obama. Even Dennis Kucinich, a Congressman, has not introduced a bill to rescind the Iraq War Resolution or to make it illegal to keep the troops there. It can be done, and they're not even trying.

To those saying the Presidential veto will stop it..... you don't get to the veto stage before actually passing a law. So if the Democrats have a mandate to end the war, then pass a law ending the war. Make the President veto it. And if he does, then take the podium on national television and rally the American people behind an end to the war. It is only if the President vetoes the law that he can be singled out as the culprit. Right now he can say he's doing what he is authorized to do and what he thinks is right and it is within his power and authority. He can also argue that the American people are behind him, because the representatives of the people are not voting in opposition to him.

Democracy takes courage. Whatever you say about Bush, he is doing what he says his convictions require him to do. The Democrats are announcing their convictions, but are they doing what they say they should be doing? Nope.

Alan S -- what has been vetoed? Has there been a law passed that would have ended the war and the President vetoed it? Really? When was that?

Note for the record that the President has only vetoed one bill regarding Iraq. He hasn't "kept vetoing everything" as some of you are claiming.

Answer 1

kind of hard to get things done when the president is promising to veto everything.

EDIT: try watching a new station other than FOX.

also, if (when) a troop bill is vetoed, what then? nothing will have been accomplished. we will still be in iraq. oh, i forgot, "at least democrats can say they did something." right, i'm sure this will be comforting to the families who have lost a soldier.

Answer 2

Because the commander in chief keeps vetoing every bill the congress puts on his desk that has a provision for bringing the troops home after a certain period of time. While the democrats have the majority unfortunately they don't have enough of a majority to over rule the president's veto.

So if you want to be mad at someone, get mad at Bush and the rest of the republicans who will not over ride the president's veto.

However, in my opinion, I think they should not fund the war anymore. period. Close the purse strings. That will force them to bring the troops home after a few months since they can only juggle the books for so long to keep it afloat.

But lets not forget. The foremost thing in any politician's mind, whether they be republican, democrat, or whatever, is to get reelected, that is thier first priority whether we all want to admit it or not.

Answer 3

Gee, do you know anything about how the government works? The Democrats may have a slim majority, they do not have the 60% needed to override a presidential veto. The Republicans, (remember how they were crying "nuclear option" if the Democrats tried to filibuster?) won't let any meaningful legislation come to a vote by using the filibuster. Sure Democrats want the war to end but the Republicans are making sure that it doesn't happen. Look toward the real obstructionists before you start pointing a finger at the Democrats.

Answer 4

Opinion and my answer: I agree with your thoughts mentioned above, yet I see our nation's presidential candidates as being cowards on the issues at hand as well as in taking an honest and truthful stand on the Iraq War. I wrote to Obama and spoke personally to a few others.

Our situation presently is that peace can be had and that the troops can be IMMEDIATELY brought home without any further escalation of the Iraq War. Our government lies once again to the American public and you are buying into their lies once again!

.

Answer 5

Wow, you need to read up on how passing a bill works. They need 60 votes to get any bill through the Senate. They therefore need Republicans help to get any bill passed. The fact is even if they passed a bill through the Senate, Bush would veto it and they would need 70 votes to override the veto, so it is not as simple as all of the Dems just voting for something. They need Republican support to get any legislation passed.

Answer 6

Uh, I believe they are there to keep the communists from over running South Korea. We have bases there that are instrumental to our defense. You wanna pull those bases out? Yeah - THERE's a brilliant idea. While we're at it - why don't we bring our military home from Guantanamo Bay? I mean, they are in Cuba, right?

Answer 7

Read more and write less. you should really read the news, they're doing all these things but either they get vetoed or can't get that last bit of support.
Remember, Democrats are not a group of mindless drones following the party leadership blindly, they represent their state's interests. Just because they have a marginal majority doesn't mean they own the house and senate.

Answer 8

Because bush has done the worst thing any commander-in-chief can possibly do.

he has kept the troops there far beyond their welcome.

he lied to get Congress to approve of this "blood-for-oil" war and anything that begins with lies, is doomed for failure.

Now, our poor troops are stuck in the middle of a stink hole, which has turned into a civil war, and they are being re-deployed after being re-deployed over and over again.

bush has totally mis-managed this war and should be brought up under treason laws, and war crimes.

Leavenworth should be his fate.

he is guilty as sin and should face the long arm of American law.

.

Answer 9

They don't have the courage of their convictions. All they have to do is simply cut off all war funding... Despite all the republican blow-hards out there who say that doing so will put the troops in danger, it will not... The military would still have plenty of money to de-mobilize and bring the troops home safely.

Please note I'm NOT saying that bringing the troops home is a good idea, I'm simply saying the republicans are wrong in predicting that cutting off war funding will endanger the troops...

And yes, I AM a republican!

Answer 10

they have done most of what you have suggested. there is this thing called a presidental VETO. all they can do at this point is to stop funding the war and that causes a back lash effect on the troops as well as morale