If dems worked with bush on Iraq in the begining instead of saying this war is lost do you think?

Question

would we have a lot stuff done in Iraq more than we have

Answer 1

there is no difference between elephant and jackass except the spelling. both parties serve the same masters. They exist to delude people into thinking they have a choice. If certain handlers decide America is going to war, then it goes to war, irregardless what " party " holds power.

Answer 2

No, it would be just the same , because you remember Bush had the Senate and House Republican, this year the Democrats got the House and Senate back just like they will have the White House. He lied about his reasons to go into Iraq , that is what the Democrats candidates are now having to answer to, why did you vote to go to war. It was all built on lies, but Bush even got the other countries to go along with him, until they found out all he told them was total lies. That is reason the other countries want help us in Iraq because Bush had Powell to lie to the United nations. He was given a blank check each time. This year the Democrat did not want to cut off the funds to support our troops, but the next time he ask for more money, they will turn him down , the surge has not worked, it is a complete disaster, it was wrong and Bush want admit the surge is not working.

Answer 3

Fact is, the dems did work with Bush "in the beginning" - before they flipped-flopped and lost their resolve and commitment. For instance, Hillery was a staunch supporter right up until she tested the political winds and started campaigning.
The dems have consistently given the enemy reason to continue and wait us out - hell, even one of our esteemed representatives told them publicly that the United States has lost the war - and at a time when our troops are on the front lines and in harms way - brilliant strategy.
If the enemy truly thought we were united and believed defeat was eminent - of course we would be a lot more successful. Until that time, they are simply waiting and hoping for a democratic victory in 2008. The same party that has accepted America's defeat as their policy on the war.

Answer 4

You can not blame Dem opinion for hindering the war. Even since the Dems have the House and Senate, Bush just vetoes whatever he wants, and still gets tons more money for the war. Strategically, the war in Iraq is almost impossible to win, America is surrounded on 3 sides. We haven't been able to secure even a 20 mile radius around Baghdad in 4 years. This is fault of Dems? I think not. Bush blind enthusiasm for his ideals has got us in a very tough spot. Maybe not impossible, but would you want these odds if there was any other way?

Answer 5

Funny how they all voted to go into this war, and then
all but a few have backed out, then they win the majority
in both houses and vow to force an end to the war. Bush
veto's their bill that had PORK and time lines and the
Dems VOW to NEVER back down, then back down.

You have the likes of Harry Reid giving aid and comfort
to the enemy by telling the world that the war is lost and
you have Murtha calling our troops Nazi's.

Yes they should have worked with us the same way that
the Republicans worked with F.D.R. Harry Truman and
L.B.J in their wars. The Republicans went along with
interring the American Japanese for the safety of the US
and the Democrats criticize us for the Patriot Act, even
though they voted for it.

Answer 6

If it was only that easy....



The reason stuff isn't getting done in Iraq is because this war is wrong. Usually, you find that bad things happen in places that you shouldn't be. Perfect example; the Middle East.

Yes, something might come from working together. And they honestly tried. But Bush has a mind set that his way will always be the right way. And we're paying for his arrogance in American lives.

Answer 7

The Democrats, on the whole, did work with Bush on Iraq in the beginning. It was deemed unpatriotic not to follow Bush's lead in the beginning (see Dixie Chicks).

However, once it was known that there were no WMD, the Democrats (and most of the thinking people in this country) felt betrayed by the circumstances that allowed Bush to invoke his Commander-in-Chief Powers in invading Iraq.

Currently, the Democrats who did work with Bush in the beginning have been ostracized by other Democrats, Republicans and the media.

Therefore, I don't think any more "stuff" would hav been achieved.

Answer 8

No, Bush got every single blank check he asked for. He mismanaged and bungled the war all by himself. You can't blame that on others, though I know you would like to.

He's CinC! The responsibility is his alone! Until they take it away from him!

The generals have been telling him it is lost for quite awhile. Just today he was reminded again with the Commanding General saying a military victory alone is not achievable. In addition, after all his pushing we control less than 1/3 of Baghdad and we have had 17 killed in 4 days!

Answer 9

are you joking, TELL US one thing that Bush wanted that the Dems blocked........or are you just saying the Dems should not say the war is lost? There is still freedom of speech in this country......and the war has been lost for a long time

Answer 10

The 'war' was won...the occupation was lost. I suspect that using the word 'war' instead of the more appropriate word 'occupation' is what gets people upset. Our troops, for better or worse, were sent to 'win a war'...which they did. They weren't sent there to indefinately occupy the physical territory of Iraq. Our military simply isn't trained to do that, nor can it be ruthless enough to do that. Pointing this out isn't a bad thing.