Wasn't one of the democrat selling points last year that they would end the war in Iraq?

Question

Why did it never happen? I'm not assaulting a political party here, I want a real answer.

Answer 1

OK, here's a real answer:

The Democrats are the majority party, but just slightly, so they do not have a big enough voting majority to override Bush's veto. It takes 60 votes in the Senate. Every bill or resolution they have tried to pass has either been defeated by the Republicans or vetoed by Bush. Yet they still keep coming up with more resolutions. Eventually enough Republicans will jump ship because they want to get re-elected next year, and we will finally have the votes needed to stop this president and his insane war.

Answer 2

Thank you for not asking in a politically bigoted way.

It is often true that officials, when they get elected, change the way they were planning on doing things. It's easy to promise, but the political reality is often sufficient to put some pause into the most integrity-filled person. There are details to situations around the world and domestically that are NOT shared with the general public due to the damage such information would cause our national security, and when an official finds this stuff out, they often will even go against their own party.

Look at President Clinton? Look at President Bush?

Didn't President Carter promise that if he became President he would get to the bottom of the U.F.O. situation? Nothing happened, pro or con there. He had good reasons for not denying or supporting that subject after getting into office.

They are still trying to do it, just not the same way. They know too much to do it the way they had planned before.

Answer 3

I can only assume that being in control of congress is not enough in order for them to be able to stop the Iraq War, as they still lack the federal administration. It is more likely that if they get elected in 2008, THEN they may be able to end the war.

On the other hand, maybe they can already do it but just don't want to because it will decrease the incentive for people to vote for them in 2008. I'm sure either of the major parties would be very willing to do this kind of thing.

Answer 4

How exactly do you end the war in Iraq? Are you referring to bringing all the troops home immidiately, because that would definitely not end the war, it would make it much worse and increase the terrorist activity in the coutnry, if not make it a haven for terrorists in the middle east. Bush is constantly trying to end the war by getting control of the area, however at every turn and attempt he gets grief and complaints from everyone. The way to "end the war" is to let the General's have control and not the politicians, let them do whatever it is that needs to be done to squash the uprising and bring peace and stability to the region.

Answer 5

if you were paying attention, the vast majority ran on a platform to set time lines for our stay, with deadlines for progress to eventually move toward getting out...

a few, like Murtha and Kucinich wanted an immediate withdraw, but they were the minority...

since being elected, the dem congress has approved a time line measure once (that I remember, maybe more), that was already vetoed by the president, and seem to be working on another one...

due to the laws of the U.S.... congress can only do so much and you need 60 votes in congress to pass legislation (called a super majority), while the dems only have 51 votes...

Answer 6

particular they have been elected to end the conflict. yet in prevalent Democrat vogue they collapsed like a house of playing cards whilst it got here time to make tricky selections. I wish i'd desire to assert that in basic terms the Republicans could make tricky selections yet maximum of them have offered out the country in basic terms like the Dems have. i don't sense too undesirable, different than on the border difficulty, however the undesirable Dems who have been so thoroughly utilized by using their social gathering would desire to sense like sh*t!

Answer 7

"Never happen" -- they've been in office five months, and they've made four attempts to do so to date.

Congress could have been more effective at stopping the war if they were willing to play hardball. Simply refuse to provide any more military funding until the troops are home. Done. Can't even be vetoed. They just don't pass any funding bills at all until the troops are ordered home.

They chose not to do that, because of the potential harm to the troops if Bush continued to be obstinate and irrational.

"Never happen" -- Bush has had five years to solve the Iraq problem. The current Congress has had five months. Give them at least some time.

Answer 8

They haven't had the votes yet. A few more converts from the Republican party and it will be done.

Answer 9

They all carry a six pack of canned smoke and mirrors and open them when they are needed to fool enough Liberals to win the election.

Answer 10

yes....you are 500% correct.

the problem is the republican lawmakers have been blocking them and Bush has vetoed what they did pass...........

But we do have another go round of funding coming up. Lets see what happens. Some republican lawmakers claim to want to end our involvement ...so lets see how these next votes go.