Why did the democrats fold on an iraq timetable?

Question

I thought that the last elections showed that the American people want to end the war. Yet the Democrats are folding on an iraq timetable. What gives? Are the Democrats a weaker party?

I thought that the last elections showed that the American people want to end the war. Yet the Democrats are folding on an iraq timetable. What gives? Are the Democrats a weaker party? If a timetable is a stupid a idea, there must be something else they can do.

Answer 1

The democrats made a promise to the American people that was very very strong: "Elect us back into office, and we promise that you won't see 'politics as usual' anymore." Americans are tired of the political squabbling that goes on between democrats and republicans, and the republicans heard that message loud and clear when, despite having a majority in both the House and Senate, they couldn't accomplish anything meaningful or worthwhile. (As you may recall, Clinton and the democrats had the same problem, which ultimately led to the republicans getting control of both the House and Senate with their "Contract with America".) The deomcrats are simply learning from history. They know that if they really were to tow the line on an Iraq timetable, THEY would look bad doing so, not to mention that there isn't a single military higher-up that is willing to agree with them.

I consider myself an independent with liberal and libertarian (depending on the topic of choice) leanings. I'm not personally fond of us being in Iraq. I think we went their under misguided principles, actually, but now that we are there, I think that history will be very kind to Bush when, many years down the road, we look back and say "Was this the right move?" I think the answer, overwhelmingly, will be "Yes."

So I've answered your first question, "What gives?" Let me take a stab at your second question. BOTH Bush (currently a lame duck president anyway) and the democrats are weak. Bush seems to believe that "changing your mind when new circumstances or new information comes forward" is a bad idea. I consider that akin to the perverbial ostrich with his head in the sand. He can't see anything because his head is in the sand. As for the democrats, they too are weak because all they have tried to do is cause a political upheaval of the president's views and ideas and have offered little constructive ideas of their own. I don't genuinely believe that "bring them home" is a good idea. What will happen when we leave there? Al Q'aida and other similar extremist groups would LOVE for us to leave. Imagine their cries on Al Jazeera television: "We defeated the infidels! They are weak! If you join us, we will eventually rule the world in Islamic Fundamentalist beliefs together!" Thats not a world I want to live in, especially as a Jew as such types typically hold very anti-semitic viewpoints.

So no, the Democrats are not a weaker party. They are simply a smarter party (at least today, anyway) having learned from history what happens when all the American people see is political squabbling in Washington, D.C.

Answer 2

They did it because it is the right thing to do considering the circumstances. We all knew that eventually the funding bill would get passed...it was a matter of who blinks first, and in this case, the dems did. As a Soldier who is also a democrat, I am glad that they made a stand and did their best to do what they consdiered to be the best thing, but at the same time, I do not blame them for caving on this particular issue....It's about compromise, and the fact that we at least have benchmarks in place now, as well as some measure of public accountability for the President, is at least a good first step.

I think that the dems chaning their mind came at a good time...This al-Sadr guy is making a LOT of noise, and he is pretty scary overall. If we have to stay to make sure that he is not able to drum up all out chaos, so be it. The idea is, however, that we still get the Iraqis trained up (i.e. benchmarks) so that we can eventually get the hell out.

I am really getting sick of hearing this whole 'cut and run' thing...By the narrowest of margins, the republicans managed to re-elect a commander-in-chief who does not want an exit strategy...and that's fine. Wait until the primary is over...I guarantee that whichever Republican gets nominated will have a very well-defined exit strategy from Iraq...if not, he will be unelectable and you will see a new meaning of the word landslide. Packing up and leaving Iraq tomorrow is cut and run...a well-defined exit strategy that is a phased withdrawl that goes along with the Iraqis meeting certain deadlines and benchmarks is just good policy.

Answer 3

Number one, they didn't have the votes to override a veto by the President so what's the point? Secondly, some members of their own party believe that setting a timetable is about one of the dumbest things ever thought up by some simpleton bean counter as a good military strategy. The instant one is set any self respecting insurgent to going to lay back and wait for the exodus---and then fight their way to victory against a much weaker foe. Thats just a bit of common sense that seems to have evaded the arm chair generals in the Congress.

Answer 4

well your first mistake was thinking the democrats didn't just pander to get votes.

your second mistake was thinking that any US president who still holds enough power in Congress or in the house to successfully Veto any legislation without breaking a sweat would cave in just because the numbers moved slightly away from his favor.

Thirdly, you think that The democrats actually expected their "timetables" to pass... Democrats are a lot of things but they are not that dumb. they are making a show of pretending to oppose Bush so you will vote for them again in 2008. They know they can't shift Bush, they know they can't end the war. the only thing they ar doing is letting our boys get killed so you will vote for them when the presidential comes up.

Look, The democrats like the republican pander to their followers. You want the war to end but even the democrats in office know it can't just "end", so they will keep the war going and make a ceremonial gesture that you won't like but won't turn you against them.

its politics, and face it friend your party played you. Just like every party before them and every party after...

Politicians play their constituents, that's what they do.

Answer 5

The Dems folded because they did not have the votes to cut and run in Iraq. The Dems are always the weaker party (on this issue and all other issues).

Answer 6

they have have been given no determination yet to cave. Bush nonetheless has his veto potential so the Dems can no longer do something besides approximately Iraq. all the Dems have been attempting to do is show their anti-conflict base that they actually do have some backbone & are prepared to combat Bush whether it extremely is extra of a PR campaign than an fairly thank you to hold the troops abode.

Answer 7

I'm not happy about it quite honestly. The reality of the situation is that if they played hard ball and kept the timetable in the bill, it would have been vetoed, and they don't have the override votes. Unfortunately for us Americans, we have stupid people running our country with more stupid people trying to get the job.

Answer 8

They folded because they knew it was a stupid, traitorous idea.
They used ending the war to get elected, made a huge stink over it, and then folded. You tell me if they are weaker.

Answer 9

Our Government works in back rooms,a deal is made, this for that ,for power for money for what ever ,in the end the people pay the price.Bush is the king of the back room ,he can not win in the open,he knows that.We may never know how they sell us out.But it can not stand the light of day.

Answer 10

read this carefully folks...

these same people who were accusing the dems of not supporting the troops because they wanted to hold the president accountable for his ghastly mistakes are now the same people who are now calling the dems 'weak.'

to me the only real lesson of the last seven years is to simply NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN.

if i have my way, the republican party will be drummed out of politics and literally gone by 2012.

and if they don't wise up about this fiasco in iraq that 70+% of americans NEVER SUPPORTED AND NEVER WILL - they will be gone sooner than that.

you keep our troops in harms way in a place that has nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terror or american security - AND NOW YOUR CROWING ABOUT IT!!!

you sir, are a monster and are not fit to speak for or in any way represent this great nation.

time to get the 'game players' out of politics folks - this guy's statement is just a taste of how the cons play this game - because that's all it is to them - a game...