2007-08-03 17:24:19 · 26 answers · asked by 6th Finger 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am democratic , and the democratic candidates have not become pro - war, what the hell are you talking about? All 3 main candidates oppose the war VERY strongly , even though Obama is the only one that isn't flip flopping.
2007-08-03 18:12:06 · answer #1 · answered by Adam 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The only Democratic candidate who has done this "all of a sudden" is Obama. Sen. Clinton has been talking for months about the need to use residual forces to deal with Al Queda - and not just in Iraq, guard the borders and continue to help train Iraqi forces. She's already well known on both sides of the aisle as a cautious hawk, nothing new here with her.
Obama has been putting forth this "dove" platform since the beginning. Now he and his people have realized he's got to appear to be tough on military issues if he wants to even get close to Hillary. Problem is he made blanket statements that make him look as inexperienced and naive about foreign policy as he really is. He's a good man, but I believe he's out of his depth here.
2007-08-04 00:44:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reports for Iraq are starting to leak. The surge is working.
The polls are coming out Congres is LOW.
The people are starting to understand that this war won't be over overnight. It is a long war, but we are making progress in the right direction and before the end of the year there is a good posibility things will change and we will be winning "Officially".
They are backpeddling not to lose votes of the independants since the country is pretty divided between the two parties. Only the swing voters matter in a close race.
2007-08-04 00:33:18 · answer #3 · answered by WCSteel 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I am really tired of this lib/con, dem/rep thing that a LOT of people feel like they need to constantly battle over... War and military is not exclusive to one party; one party is not better at war than the other party. There have been wars in both Republican and Democratic presidencies... period. This kind of question either makes you look ignorant or very naive.
2007-08-04 00:36:17 · answer #4 · answered by cattledog 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Perhaps they are beginning to realize that their previous policy of defeat wasn't exactly what Americans have in mind when it concerns their safety and security. If the political winds shift again, so will the democrats.
2007-08-04 00:29:55 · answer #5 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
don't want to appear weak for election season. double speak i think it's called, pandering to whatever audience is in front of them, they should realize though that this is all being recorded and can be played on a news show if one wishes to for hmmm whatever reasons.
2007-08-04 00:27:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Cause they want more bad news to come from Iraq, so they'll have something to run on, they know the American people don't want their Socialistic agenda, so they direct to the war for their campaign, pitiful, can you believe that, they want genocide for their something to run on?? Beats anything I ever seen.
2007-08-04 00:28:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Did they? I missed that. Hillary has never admitted she was wrong to vote for Bush's vote to go to war. Obama has said that he would strike in Pakistan, if we had "solid evidence" of terrorists.
Neither of those stances are "pro-war" in my opinion
The simple fact is, we are at war with extremists. I doubt that you would find a candidate, dem or rep that would argue that point.
2007-08-04 00:32:03 · answer #8 · answered by huduuluv 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Because Democrats are fair weather fans.
2007-08-04 00:30:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
They do what the mothership tells them to do! That and they want votes in 08 and since the surge is working they need to get cracking!
2007-08-04 00:27:50 · answer #10 · answered by brenda r 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋