Will Democrats please quit slamming Congress?

Question

I am a democrat and am not thrilled about the war to say the least, but the Democrats who keep coming on here saying the Congress "sold out" because they funded the troops need to take a lesson in how the government works. The only way that we could end the war immediately would be to cut off funds for the troops, which would be a reprehensible act, as they are over in Iraq dodging bullets to protect us. I want a change of course as much as the next person, but the people who say we should cut off funds and leave immediately need to look at reality. The only way we will ever be able to pull out of Iraq is gradually, or we will be responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. I am all for leaving Iraq, but not if we cause a humanitarian disaster.

wisenheimer....so you would take the deaths of thousands of people to say they had "done something"

Answer 1

i 100% agree...really!!..i do...i wish you were in congress.

Answer 2

I'm a Democrat, and a self-professed liberal (proud to say it) and NO, I won't stop slamming Congress for selling me and America out to George W. Bush's stubborn, ill-conceived, deceitful and unhelpful demands. To think that thousands would die because Congress says no to the President means, to me, one of two things. Either a) the President is willing to allow the troops he so ardently supports to go without the necessary materials they need if his demands aren't met, essentially taking them hostage, or b) the President and his administration is too inept to understand how to make sure that, with all the TRILLIONS the US government spends annually, there is money to fund a safe transport home for the troops. It's also possible that a mix of these two is true, that the administration is both stubborn and incompetent, and if so, then Congress MUST step up and guide them, telling the bureaucracy what has to happen lest more troops die under Bush's lackluster (to be nice) leadership.

It's unpopular to say this, but the Congress is not doing what's in America's best interests, which would be to end this war right NOW.

It's more of a self-interest; the Democratic Congress is willing to allow more soldiers to fight and die in Iraq, day after agonizing day, to bleed out our military, just so they can continue to hold Bush and the GOP accountable for the war in the 08 elections. That is without a doubt reprehensible.

Political calculations have entered their head: What will they say about us if we cut off funds now? We'll be seen as anti-military, and anti-national security. This loss of focus from the very mandate that got them their majority is grounds to recruit new congressional candidates starting right now.

You must be kidding with me, you're "not thrilled" about Iraq. Try pissed, depressed, guilty, ashamed and distraught over this catastrophe of epic proportions. And add onto that this new fact that the only people who would pledge to oppose it have given up, like so many others. Democracy is failing us, checks and balances are failing us, and America is being kicked once again in the groin by the super-executive branch and an obedient legislature. No, I cannot with all due respect genuflect to this Congress until I see some leadership, 'til I see some cahones. Nancy Pelosi, grow a pair.

Answer 3

My question is, how exactly are the troops protecting us in Iraq? I don't mean this as disrespect to the individual soldiers over there but more as a general political question. This administration's reasons for going to war have been debunked at various stages. First it was the WMDs which later turned out to be bogus (and if the nuclear threat was genuine, why didn't the US apply this same strategy to North Korea - why the double standard). Then it was to capture Sadam. That happened quite awhile back. Most Iraqis don't want us there but yet we still remain. Their infrastructure is in shards so how exactly are they a threat and how are WE being protected from them? This administration's answer is that there is no plan B but to keep forging ahead with plan A. Well, clearly, plan A isn't working. So, if given a choice between plan A and pulling the troops out immediately, I'd say pull the troops out. Our meddling has only made things worse, so more meddling (especially without a change in direction) will make things still worse, won't it? If we are concerned with causing a humanitarian disaster, why not get international humanitarian organizations in there - if they are even welcome at this point.

Answer 4

The democrats will load the Iraq "card" every time they can until the presidential elections. Everyone knows that we can not pull out now. We are committed. If we leave, it's genocide. And we would have all that blood on our hands. Were we lied to? Yes! Does that change anything now? No! We have to do what is right and try to bring peace there or that country will become a disaster and we will be blamed by the world for it. The issue that the democrats chose to ignore is the knowledge that they had during the Clinton years of Osama, where he was, what he was doing, and where his money was coming from. Nobody wants to say it out loud, but "19 Saudi's on the planes, no Iraqis".

Answer 5

Wow! I'm speechless.....and I just gave you a star.

" to cut off funds for the troops, which would be a reprehensible act, as they are over in Iraq dodging bullets to protect us. I want a change of course as much as the next person, but the people who say we should cut off funds and leave immediately need to look at reality."

Is there a camera on me?????

Answer 6

The thing is Iraq is in a middle of civil war and no other country belongs in that. Congress had a plan and our president kept vetoing it. Bush had a chance with the plan that congress had to bring our troops home. It wasn't tomorrow, it was in 2008. And I agree and understand why 2008. And if you don’t think I know what is going on, lets review what we should have done, then what happened. OK!

Our troops are in the region because of resources. Yes, we are there for oil. As for the mess we have, Sunnis and Shiites have been at war for over a 1000 years and Sadam Hussein was mean enough to make them stop.

Here is a list of things we should have done.

1. Take out Sadam.
2. Keep some of the people that know how to run the city in there.
3. Keep their army intact and reinforce it.
4. Give Iraqis jobs to rebuild their country and help pump oil and give it to us cheaply.
5. Lay out a constitution and have the people that know how to run the country enforce it.

We Instead,

1. Took out Sadam.
2. Went on a witch-hunt to take out his people that where under him that ran the country and the army.
3. Put suspects in Abu Grab Grave Prison tortured and humiliated them.
4. Then we brought in contractors to do job that Iraqis could do instead of us.

Results,

Sunnis and Shiites are back at each other throats and some Iraqis are blowing themselves up in car bombs in protest that the U.S. should leave.

In Afghanistan we are looking for Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia wants to protect the Sunnis. Iran wants to protect Shiites. And we could be looking at a really nasty war in a oil rich area that could bring this world to its knees.

This isn’t Vietnam. It’s much worse!

Jessica Lancaster
http://360.yahoo.com/my_profile-5NWtXp47frX3fQ9VuwIn2SG2oZJhYyQMnA--?cq=1

Answer 7

If I remember right, we pulled out of Vietnam gradually, and then Congress cut off funding. It still cost millions of people their lives. It's good that you see the dangers of an early withdrawal, but I'm not sure a gradual withdrawal will avert that humanitarian disaster you predict will occur. We have to win this thing. We have to stabilize this country.

I've been telling you the Far left doesn't give a da*n about the military ever since I've been on YA. I could speak on this subject for hours. Better you educate the Far Left than I.

Check out the link.

Answer 8

You forget one thing our troops aren't in Iraq to protect us. They are there to protect the egg on George W. Bush's face. And while you say cutting off funds would be a reprehensible act it is the only thing Congress can do to end this senseless war.

We have an armed force to protect the us but who's going to step up and protect the troops?

Answer 9

We already have humanitarian disaster...wouldn't you agree?

We got rid of Saddam, we are sure that there are no weapons of mass destruction programs going on there, the people of Iraq now have a democratically elected government. What more can having troops there accomplish? It is time that we say that accomplished what we set out to do, declare victory and leave.

I want peace as much as anyone else, but how does keeping US soldiers there accomplish this?

Answer 10

I think youre the one who needs to look at how the Congress works. If they really wanted to end the war they could.

My candidate for President, Mike Gravel did a one-man filibuster for five months straight in '71 to end to the draft, and it worked! Its called tough tactics, which is something the Congressional Democrats are incapable of doing because theyre spineless and sold-out.

Gravel just released his Withdrawal from Iraq Act not very long ago. Its a tough law that would require tough tactics to get it through, but of course, no-one in Congress has the balls to try it.

As for this "humanitarian crisis" argument, you could go on for hours about the "what if" consequences of our leaving Iraq.

And you know what the truth is? The truth is that kind of thinking is what kept us in Vietnam for so long. People back then kept talking about "well if we leave now all the dominos are going to fall and the entire region will become Communist". Did that happen when we lost in Vietnam? Nope. Its amazing to me how history is repeating itself and hardly anyone will call a spade a spade and address the issue truthfully. Thousands of our soldiers and God-only-knows how many Vietnamese died for absolutely nothing in that war, and the exact same thing is happening right now!!!

And no-one to my knowledge is suggesting that we leave Iraq and forget about it. My candidate for President, Mike Gravel, says we should get the hell out ASAP and then focus our efforts on aggressive diplomacy to end the civil war. No-ones saying we should leave and then ignore whats going to happen afterwards. The truth is that Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region all have a stake in having a stable Iraq. If we get out of there we can bring them all together and negotiate an end to the civil war, and theyll help. They wont help as long as we're there occupying the country and trying to force the Iraqis to do things our way. But if we recognize that we made a mistake and do our best to try and end the civil war with the least amount of bloodshed as humanly possible, the rest of the world will work with us and do what they can to end the civil war. No one except Al-Queda wants this civil war to continue, and the sooner we can end it through diplomacy, the sooner Al-Queda will be forced to leave. They have virtually no support from the Iraqi people themselves. Theyre just crossing the unguarded borders and using the chaos as cover to attack our troops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfVW8jNqHfY (Video of the press conference where Gravel announced and explained his Withdrawal from Iraq Act)

Answer 11

Well they're not as unified in opposing the war as I'd like.

But I have low expectations.

Hopefully more attempts will be made to end the president's stupidity.

Oh, and I seriously doubt the most powerful and expensive military industrial complex ever created on the face of the earth would find it necessary to put the troops at the mercy of a lot of poorly organized hobos with seconhand AKs, just because Congress didn't pay their allowance on time.

Oh, and it appears to me a "humanitarian disaster" has ALREADY been caused by the army's supposedly well-meant efforts, Mr. DoRight.