If you are a Democrat and oppose the war, shouldn't you be angrier at your own party? I mean, of course you expect the other party to do things you don't want so, why complain to them about it?
2007-08-14 11:58:56 · 22 answers · asked by eldude 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There are a lot of Republicans who oppose the war so I guess, if this is normal way to address your problems with government, they should complain about the Dems who have done nothing to stop the war. I blame the Dems from the start because they were bipartisan in their support so, there goes your balance of power.
2007-08-14 12:00:44 · update #1
g I was paying attention and have been since, thank you for under estimating me.
2007-08-14 12:08:15 · update #2
Why do I hear that sorry excuse so often. The Republicans were a majority, so IF THEY WANTED TO they could not stop the war from happening. IF THEY WANTED TO THEY COULD HAVE VOTED NO TO AUTHORIZE USE OF FORCE, IF THEY WANTED TO. But they didn't.
2007-08-14 12:15:05 · update #3
This war is a Republican War. The Republicans were in the majority in both the House and the Senate in 2003. The Democrats simply do NOT have the numbers to end the war and to bring our troops home. They need a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to be "veto-proof," otherwise, President Bush will just veto any legislation the Democrats try to pass. If you're a Democrat and you oppose this Republican War in Iraq, write your Democratic Congressman/woman or your state Senator and tell them that you understand why they haven't ended the war yet. If your Senator or Congressman/woman is a Republican and you oppose the war, write them and tell them the majority of American people want the troops home NOW! And if they don't listen, let them know that it could impact their chances for re-election in 2008! Fight WAR, Not Wars!
2007-08-14 12:09:38 · answer #1 · answered by It's Your World, Change It 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Everyone is missing the BIG picture. Iraq is not a war. It is a simply a battle in a long war of the 21st century...the Islamic War.
We pull out of this battle, vis-a-vis John Murtha, and that will only end this battle and not the "war," setting the stage for even more deadly battles to come. Clinton's non-responses to escalating battles fought against us by Islamists, continually bringing greater numbers of death to Americans, should have taught you something.
Enemies intent on your destruction do not go away when you retreat, as the typical pacifist (typical liberal) seem to believe. We will have shown them, "You won this battle...we lost." They know then that they are stronger-willed than we are and they simply regroup, get stronger, and attack harder. I don't suppose any of this sunk in during your studies of the past 1000 years of human history on this planet, did it?
Did any of you see "300?" In case you haven't noticed, Greece is not Islamic. Although Leonidis lost that battle after inflicting heavy casualties on the Persians, the bravery he and his men showed rallied great support throughout Greece and Xerxes' army was later, decisively beaten by the much smaller in numbers Greeks. If Leonidis were our president, John Murtha and his ilk would still be calling for his impeachment, and for the impending Islamification of the US.
2007-08-14 19:51:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats are responsible, but the Republicans are alot more responsible. So they deserve much more blame. More important, the Democrats were the minority in 2003, so they couldn't stop Bush anyway. The Republicans could have, but didn't. And Bush is a Republican. So yeah, the Democrats deserve some of the anger, but not that much.
2007-08-14 19:35:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am angry at the Republicans first and foremost because they wanted this war and many of them have supported it the entire time. Many of them also voted for George Bush who stared and supports this war. I am not angry at the democrats as much as I am disappointed. I think they are working hard to get something to stop this war but everything they keep trying to do gets vetoed but they could work a lot harder.
2007-08-14 19:26:33 · answer #4 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the answer is the war was illegal. just like korea and vietnam. the constitution plainly states that ONLY THE CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR, meaning you can't go to war without the consent of the american people. the people have to declare war or its simply an illegal war. hilllary voted for this war. every person running for president who had a vote, voted to go to war, with the lone exception of
RON PAUL. We need a president that has actually read the constitution.
Ron Paul for president in '08
2007-08-15 00:37:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not aware of any Democratic Congress persons or Senators who participated in manufacturing the WMD lie.
That's why the Republicans rightfully get the blame. They lied to the American public, to Congress and to the United Nations.
2007-08-14 19:14:14 · answer #6 · answered by fredrick z 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Republicans more or less taught democrats the word "hypocrite" and as a returned favor many democrats tend to forget their backing on removing Saddam - Even though Bush boldly said he was going to eradicate terrorists too.
People all agreed something needed to be done.
As soon as our Troops were called to duty many further to the left liberals began objecting in droves.
The funniest thing I get out of all this, is all the buzz-words republicans have been using for years are turning up in the vocabulary of democrats attempting to use them on republicans. Dizzy as this might sound, as I personally gave credit to most liberals on having nearly all the creativity factors in generating cool buzz-words... Most of them are pathetically oblivious to coming up with any new material on their own.
-
So even with literary material posing as questions based on politics, war questions and the like - they're tapped with not having anything of substance except for condemning others while appearing to act like they never were part of the 70% of Americans who supported THE GOVERNMENT back when we went to war.
2007-08-14 19:25:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Dems went along with the war out of support for the "presidency", and not Bush. And Bush knew that they "had" to back the presidency at that time and give the presidency powers to avenge 9/11.
Bush took those powers, that blank check, and screwed it all up.
2007-08-14 19:10:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Many people just spew hate (Both Sides) because of what they are told.
As Hilary said last week, She intends to keep troops there at least 3 more years.
Right or wrong, we are ALL in this thing, not one party or the other.
J Camp...Good answer. Give him the 10 points.....
2007-08-14 19:08:03 · answer #9 · answered by Ken C 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Truth is
Bush Lied,
Soldiers Died,
Mothers Cried,
Politicans should be Fried!
2007-08-14 19:10:23 · answer #10 · answered by F.U. BUDDY 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋