Why will the democrats give the White House a Iraq funding bill without attaching a timeline for withdraw?

Answer 1

As much as I'm against the war and the way the Bush administration has handled it, I think a specific time table for withdraw is foolish. Establishing benchmarks that will lead to reductions in troop levels is more realistic. If we establish a time table, then the insurgents just bide their time until we're gone. Like it or not, once we invaded Iraq, we took on the responsibility to see it through. To withdraw before the job of re-establishing a stable government is completed would be dooming the people of Iraq to a future worse than under Saddam.

Answer 2

The democrats realized that the administration was able to play the democrats' game and make them to be the "bad guys" and in doing so forced the democrats to back away from forcing the administration to have a timeline for a withdrawal if the administration wanted a Iraq funding bill.

Answer 3

Bush vows to veto a bill to set a deadline for troops leaving Iraq which would in turn deny funding to the same troops. Is this supposed to be a comfort to the troops? A bill ladened with pork to entice others to vote in favor of it. Is this supposed to be a comfort to the anti-war citizens? How about the citizens who detest pork? Each side seems so determine to appeal to their bases that it is getting almost comical...i mean scary. What is scarier is this is the group of individuals that the citizens of the United States of America voted to have as representatives. This is too much.

Answer 4

They will do it all over again in September when the next "emergency" spending bill comes up.
You aren't really realizing something. While the masses are bit*hing about the war, and support the Dems on the spending bill with withdrawal timelines, when polled 60% balked at cutting off funding. This therefore means unless the same ones who are against this war are also against funding, there is not much the Democratic controlled Congress can do without the 2/3 majority they would need to override the veto. So unless the majority of "we the people" get up off our collective a*ses and say to the Congress " CUT OFF FUNDING" then you got no one to blame but yourselves for not providing a veto-proof majority to the Dems as well as by also convincing your possible Republican representative to do what is right for the country, not what they perceive as right for the party. When dealing with a mule, you got to have not only the carrot but a long enough switch to swat his behind. The slight majorities in both House and Senate was the carrot but a short switch

Answer 5

Because their time table was nothing but a political move and was not based on facts and did ignored the fact that we are at war. For some reason, Dems are fighting against this country at home while the muslim extremists are fighting against everyone who is different than them, especially the US. Maybe it's time you admit we are at war and it will not stop if we pull out and give up. The islamofacists have stated, they will fight even harder and take over the middle east if we leave. They also have people here, waiting to rise up, but their focus is still Iraq and Afgan.

By the way, Edmonds stated this week, we are not at war and we should just accept that the islamofacist attacks are just part of life and we should get used to it. Are you people nuts?!!!

Answer 6

Because there aren't enough votes in congress to override a presidential veto. Continuing to argue over the matter and in the process delaying the vote would be political suicide. While Americans have some pretty strong opinions about politicians on both sides, 99.9% of them back their troops.

Answer 7

A larger number of Americans than they are willing to admit don't want to see the troops hurt or handicapped by Congress for partisan reasons. It is simple: the dems blinked first in this standoff. They feared the political fallout from the restive 'silent' majority if they continued their futile posturing.

Answer 8

they may be forced to. I do hope, however, that the bill includes a series of events that need to occur within a reasonable amount of time.

Let's face it, the Iraqi government is feeding off the sugartit of the US and it's time they carried their own country.

Answer 9

Because they don't this war to end anymore than Bush and cronies do. They are all about looking tough and trying to make a point without appearing weak. Pandering to the voters.

Answer 10

Because they can't stand by Reid's comment that the war is lost. If the war is lost than why provide funding?