I have a question for all the Dems that are so against the war. Why have your leaders defunded the war? They have the power of the purse and could end the war tomorrow. Why have they not done that? Do they only want to score political points? It is very easy to just cry and moan about the war, why don't they do anything about it?
2007-07-06 16:29:38 · 36 answers · asked by leo 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Do you want an honest answer? As a liberal I have to say that the majority of Democrats are playing politics NOT doing what is best.
As far as the war in Iraq, it is a loose loose situation. Pull out - leave the people of Iraq in the mess we made, plus a bigger instability in the Middle East.
Stay and count the number of dead, wounded and watch nothing change...how long did Vietnam go on for?
Difference being we have better meds to reduce the dead, but increase the wounded.
As a grateful American I believe the only answer is to stop playing politics and start working together to figure this mess out. I hate the division that exists in our country at present!
2007-07-06 16:44:14 · answer #1 · answered by crct2004 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why do you think George didn't fire Rumsfeld before the 06 elections. He wanted to give the democrats a slight majority so they would look bad after the elections, and it would take some heat off of him. They haven't done what they promised because they know the American people really don't want to cut off funding and bring the troops home. If they did, they would lose the elections in 08. They didn't get the immigration bill passed either. Their looking worse all the time. Only 17% approval in the senate. And who pray tell is responsible? None other than George Bush. Thanks George, for assuring a republican victory in 08. I guess they gave us a real thumpin.
2007-07-06 16:46:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats are not really against the war and would have started it if they were in power in 2003. Remember a majority of them voted to start the conflict. Iraq is chaotic now, but they probably figure if they end the war and it falls into total chaos they will be framed as the incompetent anti-war party for another generation like after Vietnam.
Furthermore, there is no coherent policy among the Democrats on how to end the conflict. Another sign in my book they really do not want to end the conflict.
2007-07-06 16:41:47 · answer #3 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Democrats can not supply up the warfare, they don't have sixty seven votes in the Senate. in the event that they attempt to bypass law to rigidity Troop withdrawal, President Bush will veto it. you go with 2/3 vote to override a Presidential Veto. in the event that they tried to diminish off all government investment for the warfare, President Bush has already pronounced that he will pull investment from different protection projects and placed it in the direction of Iraq. regrettably he holds each and every of the playing cards, because of the fact the Neocons in congress will element with him. So there is truly no checks and balances in comparison President. because of the fact of this that's crucial to get the Neocons out of the White residing house and Congress. They do this country greater harm than good.
2016-10-20 03:25:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats are against the war, but they do not want to just pull out, they want to do it on a time table. Don't you read the paper or listen to the news. There was a bill that passed the house and the senate with a senseable timetable to do all of this, giving enough time and money to start wrapping up the war and start getting the troops to start coming home. Something like what Tony Blair put in place in England. In case you seem to have missed this, after it passed all the necessary votes it went to Bush to be signed, and as expected he vetoed the bill. He has no desire to get out of Iraq. So, as you see the Dems have done what they can to start a withdrawal. They don't believe that you can just walk away, that's not fair to the people over there, and even though you seem to think that's what all Dems want, it isn't. They don't want an immediate end, they want a fair and even end to this chaos.
2007-07-06 16:41:24 · answer #5 · answered by lochmessy 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It just so happens that there's a Republican Right Wing President George W Bush.
The Republican George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are supported by powerful right wing Senators like John Warner of Virginia and John McCain of Arizona and many others.
The only instrument the Democrats have is to cut funding to the troops and with this idealogical President Bush would not pull the troops out to save money but operate on a shoe string during combat operations and would put more troops in harms way.
The only other instrument for the Democrats is impeachment and I'm not sure that idea would fly in face of the right wing opposition.
Thanks
2007-07-06 16:40:58 · answer #6 · answered by telwidit 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because the Dems that moan and complain conveniently forget that their Democratic leadership, they taut so well, VOTED FOR the war in Iraq.
The only reason that it's forgotten is that it isn't a popular war as it was once before, and as a result it's time for Dems to sway in another direction to try to gain votes in their vascillating means of approach.
2007-07-06 16:50:54 · answer #7 · answered by jimmyd 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
war is something you dont just back out of. like all things of that magnitude it takes time. republicans kill me how they think that democrats can wave a magic wand and , poof, the war is over! people should realize that once you have entered into combat, there are a great many things involved in war and occupation. i knew that going into this war, reversing and coming back home would be damn near impossible. in my heart of hearts, i really do believe this occupation could last 15 years or more. and i know that everybody involved in the decisionmaking process knew this going in. so my conservative friend, i think you should rethink your question, cuz nobody in the world has the power to just end the war.
2007-07-06 16:46:36 · answer #8 · answered by darvosix 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The process of "applying the brakes" is a varied one.
You can 1) Slam on the brakes, 2) gently apply the brakes, 3) start pumping the brakes.
When it comes to ending the war in Iraq, how do you want a RESPONSIBLE Congress to apply the brakes?!
I think the Democratic majority in both houses is beginning to gently apply the brakes.
2007-07-06 16:50:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The dems have tried like crazy to set a deadline for troop withdrawal. However, Bush has threatened to veto any such bill They also threatened to hold back funds for the war (I believe it was Ted Kennedy that led that effort) but gave in to give Bush's "new strategy" some time. If they do not see huge results in the next few months from the "new strategy" the Dems are going to start setting deadlines again. Keep up with the news.
2007-07-06 16:37:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋