If the Democrats were elected on a mandate to end the war, why didn't they cut funding?

Question

Are they more concerned with having the war linger through the 2008 election, so that they could "own the issue", rather than solve the problem and risk Bush getting credit for bringing the troops home?

Answer 1

Because cutting funding while the troops are still in the field is the stupidest thing any government could possibly do.You want to get them home as soon as possible yes,but until that time you have to give them full support and all the equiptment they need while they are still there in the battlezone.What are you going to say to the troops? "Sorry private we didn't get the fundung for that armored humvee,you'll have to drive the streets in this Yugo for now,and we don't have any more bullet proof vests,here take this Reynolds Wrap and see if enough layers of foil can stop bullets from killing you".

I mean come on thats just common sense.All cutting funding does is put the troops in danger.The funding will be cut entirely when the troops get home.Until that time they need all the support they can get.You can't play politics with peoples lives,cutting funding for the troops would do exactly that and in the end the politicians wouldn't be punishing each other,just the troops who are doing their jobs.

Answer 2

What "mandate"? Check the news; Democrats are elected simply because they are liberals; the media is controlled by liberals. It is a wonder if any one is ever elected who is on the side of Americanism. Clinton certainly wasn't: he was against war to the point of being a draft dodger (yet he sent our troops into harms path more times than any other President). Study the Constitution: the President has the power of the veto. Also, the President is the Commander-in-Chief: he is the actual head of the military.
The war WILL linger: do you want it over there, or here in our streets?

Answer 3

They're too chicken to do anything that could be misconstrued as not supporting (sending) the troops (to their deaths). Since they can't get through a bill that both funds the troops (and hence the war) while also setting a timeline to withdraw them (or whatever), they end up funding the troops and the war without getting anything done to end the war.

Likewise, they focus a lot on things like the Walter Reed scandal, because that both pleases opponents of the war, but also shows that they "support the troops", so the pro-war creeps can't whinge about it too much.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 4

i'm able to't talk for all liberals, yet i'm able to talk for myself. once you've overthrown a regime, you've a duty to the voters to interchange it. in case you decrease & run, it leaves a ability vacuum that shall we homocidal tribalists homicide voters (e.g. in Iraq) till the vacuum is crammed (with the help of a ability you would no longer elect). operating example, at the same time as the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and the U.S. did not act to stabilize the rustic, different anti-Soviet militias grew to grow to be their guns upon one yet another and trashed the position. The chaos become so undesirable that the Afghanis began viewing the fundamentalist, regulation-and-order Taliban as an eye-catching option.

Answer 5

The Dem's have no mandate, they fail to realize they got got power back due to votes against Repub's rather than votes for them.
They could cut off funding but they don't have the guts to face the American people afterward. It's just style over substance. I have no patience for people who only want to point out the problem without offering a solution. Unless you have a better idea, shut up.

Answer 6

They didn't have the integrity to stand up to their beliefs. They also don't have the votes to end funding but that is a different point. President Bush owns the issue and nobody is going to wrestle those rights away from him, beside, the democrats don't want to own the issue, they want to make sure the President is wearing that chain when he drags down the whole republican party.

Answer 7

How many Republican administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb. Its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?

Answer 8

Because they want to drag it out to the next election so they can use it against the republicans. Of course they have the power to end it, yet don't. If they don't want it, don't put a bill through congress giving it more money its that simple. But wait, there is another reason they put this bill through. Its because along with the war funding they also get billions of dollars of pork barrel spending to go along with it. They say, "I'll vote to put money forth for the war only if you pay billions for my special projects."

Answer 9

It's a shame most "patriots" like you don't even know how our branches of government work. Maybe you should take another class on government and stay awake next time!
Let's see how many Neocons try to save themselves as the next elections near - then you can spew all over yourself.

Answer 10

Brillant Question.
Democrats want the war to go on, THEY JUST WANT US TO LOSE.
Democrats believe that dead soldiers bring them more votes.
Democrats care More about Votes & Power than they do about America.
(I wonder if Democrat Voters will ever realize that the Democrats LIE to them every election......NO...... They never learn.)
DEMOCRATS ARE FUN!!!!! ENJOY THEM.