why do the democrats constantly complain about bringing home the troops and ending the war when they?

Question

are the ones who control the money? they can end the way NOW, yet they dont. could it be that they are wrong with their position that americas want the US to cut and run?

Answer 1

Yes, they could de-fund the war by simply refusing to pass a bill funding it. Just don't schedule a war spending bill for a vote, or leave any funding for the war out of the other appropriations. There is NO issue of needing a "veto-proof" majority whatsoever.

They have the power to cut off funding, by simply not funding. Whether they should or not is another question.

I don't know what they're doing. Not leading, certainly.

Answer 2

They want to have their cake and eat it too.
They have invested almost six years in trying to ensure defeat.
They have staked their Party's future on a military failure.
If they pull out NOW, just three weeks after the start of the new "SURGE", and with the insurgents in Iraq fleeing for their lives, defeat will ensue, but it will be obvious to everyone who caused the defeat.
The Democratic Party must assure defeat, but have to make it look like it is the result of the incompetence of George Bush and the Republican Party.
If they had never started to fight against victory, Iraq would be settled by now in spite of Bush's incompetence (and he IS incompetent).
Terrorism is another matter.
We need to make the entire WORLD realize that this is a WORLD WAR.
The terrorists are everywhere. South America, Australia, The Philippines..... it is a world war and will never end until the entire world agrees to end it.
The Americam public has been fed specious arguments stating Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. That just isn't true. Due to our slow build-up prior to the invasion, (it takes time to move an entire army into position) Germany and Russia, the only two nations in the UN security council against the war at the beginning, had a chance to remone all evidence of their sales of weapons to Iraq. When the storage facilities were located and opened little evidence of their presence remained and no weapons wer found. There was some paperwork indicating the truth of the matter, but no weapons remained.
Americans DON'T want to cut and run because they have a fairly accurate idea what the results would be. If they new the whole truth, they would be FOR supporting the war on terror and the actions taken in Iraq.

Answer 3

The Senate has 49 democrats, 49 republicans and a couple of independents. The House is 53% democrat and 46% republican with a few vacant seats.

Any legislation the democrats could pass would be vetoed by the incompetant GW Bush. Congress would then need a 2/3's vote to override the veto. Since Congress is at a virtual deadlock, being nearly 50/50 republicans-democrats, getting a 2/3's consensus is all but impossible.

However, the public is sick and tired of the war and end of term republicans are worried they will not be re-elected unless something is done in Iraq, so they are putting more pressure on Bush to get out.

Answer 4

They don't control the money, without the 2/3 override of Bush's veto. Obviously.

Still, more and more Republicans are deserting Bush every day, so possible they will pull the plug soon.

Finally, of course and obviously, even if the Democrats could unilaterally cut off funds, it would give despicable conservative weasels the excuse of hysterically whining "we were winning in Iraq, until the Democrats cut off the money" for the next 35,000 years.

So it can be done,but at least some Republicans are going to have to wake up and join Dems in the reality-based community to make it happen.

Answer 5

nice spin.

cutting off the money may not be the best way to end this war.
I am quite sure that it would be one of the worst ways to end the war. I'm not the only Democrat who feels this way.

nice use of "cut and run"
wanting the war to end because it doesn't look like we will ever win is Not the same as cut and run.

did you know that Republicans are starting to complain about the war in Iraq as well ?
that would be a good way to end this war - with Rep's & Dem's both agreeing that we should get out because we can never win.

Answer 6

all of their talk is to appease about 15% of democrats, the wild eyed foaming at the mouth socialists, they feel that without these people they cannot win an election, that is what Dean is telling them, and dean is the leader of the wild eyed foaming at the mouth radicals.

08 will be a big year for the dems, it could be their demise if they lose both congress and the WH, which would be good for America, once the dems oust the socialists it might be the party it used to be 50 years ago.

Answer 7

Yeah, that'd look good! Let's just leave our troops stranded with no money! Could you imagine? Then you'd be b!tching, "Dems hate the troops! They cut off their funding!" It's Bush's decision to leave them over there, and since he is, we're not going to put them in harms way even more by cutting their funds! I won't even get into the fact that they have control of Congress by a thread...

Don't blame the Dems for the current administration doing a crappy job w/ the "War on Terror"...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terror_threat

Answer 8

If the Democrats in congress were to cut off funds for the war, then they would get smeared as cutting off funds to the troops.

It would be a right-wing nutjobs wet dream come true.

Answer 9

Democrate, Republicans, both controls all the money!!!
This war in Iraq is only profitable to big banks, not the US, not you, not me, nobody except the bankers... Now if those insurgents would just begin to believed that they are playing the game of geopolitician manipulators, they might stop to feed them money!!!

Answer 10

The Dem-bulbs don't "control" anything--they only have the teensiest majority in Congress, enough almost to render them meaningless noisemakers (which of course they are at any rate).