Yes, some Democrats voted for the war at its onset, and we all wished for the best,but its was proudly a "Republican" undertaking and it was SUPPOSED to be a "Republican" victory.
Now, four years later, it is seen for the disaster that it is. What to do? Easy: Blame others.Dont blame yourself,heaven forbid, that would be TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for your trust in the Bush Administration, and its consequences.
One example of how bad the rage has gotten from Republicans passing the buck is as follows:
"You dems are personally responsible for this problem . Nothing anyone says to you can even possibly be REAL . You have made your bed , now go sleep in that disgusting rat-infested hell ."-Earnest P,phd/THC.
Saying Democrats "want" defeat and surrender is beyond childish at this point, it is costing us more American lives every day. Either win handily or get out,Republicans.
And oh yeah, he calls himself a "christian",too.Nice.
The "rat infested" hell is the Republican's spin.
2007-07-19 05:06:53 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Its actually quite simple.We were led into an unjust war by a republican president and a republican led congress.The war has been a disaster.The republicans have become notorious for not taking responsibility for their actions.They blame others,spin the truth,have amnesia and flat out lie to keep from admitting their responsibility.
2007-07-19 05:38:14 · answer #1 · answered by Sid 3 · 2⤊ 6⤋
First of all this is an American war. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc.. are all Americans. Yeah, that means you and the people you disagree with as well. I'm not understanding your logic that even though the Democrats voted for it, it is now a Republican undertaking. Disagreement on when and how to end a war doesn't absolve anyone of the responsibility of starting it. All you are doing is what you are accusing the Reps of doing and that is shifting blame. Do you believe for one second that if this war had ended quickly and decisively that the Dems wouldn't have taken credit? Both parties are to blame as well as the American people who backed this war as a majority while still amped up from 9/11. I agree that we need a change of direction (and needed it for a while), and don't understand this governments refusal to try a different approach. However, I will not lay blame soley on one party or the other.
2007-07-19 05:23:14 · answer #2 · answered by bopoppa 3 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Naw, in regard to the financial equipment in fact what we are speaking approximately is larger than congress or presidential policies. In economics there is such a concern as business enterprise cycles, improve, recessions etc. After various years of improve or perhaps over improve the financial equipment often contracts into recession or perhaps probable melancholy as business enterprise slows down, unemployment will improve, earnings in business enterprise decline and subsequently fee of companies and genuine belongings additionally can decline heavily. Granted distinctive political policies can often improve an issue or make a foul problem worse, however the international is significanly larger than the rustic. in certainty the rustic is turning out to be to be much less important on the financial international degree and the different 5 billion human beings will proceed existence regardless of ways nicely 3 hundred million in North united states of america fare. That being suggested would not excuse deficit spending, little or no monitoring of unlawful and/or unworkable mortgages, and profilgate waste on high priced wars etc., etc. etc. So politcal events are in certainty a waste of time and propose little interior the suited diagnosis. Even communism decrease than Lenin and Stalin, Nazism decrease than Adolf Hitler, incredibly some stages of socialism decrease than all of us else frequently revert back to a minimum of a few thing else by using fact the persons can basically stand lots stupidity. So, Democrats, Republicans, Liberitarians, Communists and each physique of any and each persuasion are all to blame and the human problem problem maintains especially circumstances for the greater advantageous and numerous times for the greater severe.
2016-10-09 01:53:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was to be a U.S. victory.
Democrats voted for the surge and the general to take over to make things better.
In less time than democrats been in office they are calling for the cut & run.
If the democrats don't want a retreat why don't they want to give the general the man and supplies to do what he needs to get the job done?
Do you really think that the Muslim terrorists are going to stop if we pulled out.
We try that once and got 9/11.
Do you want that as repeat preformance?
2007-07-19 05:40:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
You're doing the same thing the Republicans are doing. They blame the Democrats, you blame them. Instead of blaming each other back and forth, we should all be figuring out a way to acheive the most satisfactory outcome in Iraq. Both sides play politics. I really think if the Democrats had not tried to oppose the war after they voted for it, we could be nearly finished by now.
Both parties are to blame for dragging this war out.
2007-07-19 05:12:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
Why do Republicans have a track record of bailing Democrats out of the wars they start? It wasn't a Republican that got us into the most hated war of our time (Vietnam), but it was a Republican that finally got us out. It wasn't a Republican that got us into the Cold War, but it was a Republican that ended it. In a lot of ways the conduct of this war IS a Democratic problem. It was Clinton's administration that forced our military to adopt the new 'Rules of Engagement' that are basically modeled on the United Nations Security Forces. If we took the leash off of our guys over there and let them fight the war the way there were trained to, this would be over a lot more quickly and with significantly less loss of life.
2007-07-19 05:12:52 · answer #6 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 8⤊ 5⤋
Wasn't it a democrat that stood on the Senate floor and declared the "war was lost"? Wasn't it a democrat that said our troops were murdering and terrorising innocent Iraqi women and children. Wasn't it a democrat that went to Syria and said "The U.S. knows that the road to peace goes through Damascus"? Wasn't it a democrat that said "Trust the generals" after they unanimously voted to confirm Gen Patreus, then a couple of weeks later said "I don't trust him".?
2007-07-19 05:53:05 · answer #7 · answered by madd texan 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Thanks for such an easy question to answer !!!
" Why can't Republicans finish a war without blaming Democrats when it goes sour " ?. . . . . . . Answer -- Because we NEED everyone together to do it !! Including Democrats .
2007-07-19 05:47:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
You said a lot. So, fighting terrorism and extreme, radical ideas is a Republican effort. Dems don't want that? Promoting prosperity and liberty in Iraq and the Middle East is a Republican effort? You bet. And, actually, the blame game is the other way around. Dems voted for this war, too. Now that they think we're "losing" it, they blame President Bush and everyone else they can.
2007-07-19 05:15:14 · answer #9 · answered by girlonfire *White Sox Pride* 3 · 6⤊ 5⤋
The war is a money train and both sides hopped on. There is no difference between the two anymore. That's the answer. I couldn't stand the Clinton's (which one was President anyway?) I don't like the Bush Family standards either. I really don't think we have had a decent President since Kennedy, and he wasn't totally honest.
2007-07-19 05:16:51 · answer #10 · answered by patriotgains 2 · 4⤊ 4⤋