...And if they're perceived as being unsupportive of the troops, create legislation providing funding for their protection and well-being until they're pulled out? Olbermann suggested the other day that the Democrats are deliberately prolonging the war for political reasons, to make the Republicans look like the bad guys for as long as possible. The longer it continues, the worse the Republicans will look come '08. Do you think the Democrats are letting our troops die to score political points? If so, they're no better than the Repubs in my view.
2007-09-20 14:26:19 · 33 answers · asked by abdiver12 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I love it that some here still blame Bush for it....'because he will/did veto'. Funny, I remember Nixon had the same problem with his Congress and they STOPPED FUNDING THE WAR by not allowing a budget to pass. Nixon had no choice but pull our troops out.
Fact is....This is blatant and obvious politics at it's best. I hear alot of people talk about Bush supporters being head-in-the-sand types. Looking at the defenses of the Democratic Congress supporters, those Bush supporters have some fine company.
2007-09-20 16:20:45 · answer #1 · answered by emp 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Of course Keith would come up with something like that. He's an idiot.
The reason Dems won't pull funding completely is because that would guarantee defeat, humiliation and embarrassment for all Americans. It would also jeopardize the USA's interests in that area. The Dems wouldn't want to be responsible for all that. They'd rather talk and ridicule.
Never forget...the Dems voted in favor of this war. And Hillary Clinton, way back in 1998, when her hubby was in the White House, warned about Hussein and suggested he be removed from power. She even went as far as to claim that Iraq had WMD's.
2007-09-20 14:42:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Democrates were elected to office to end the war.
They are not serious.
They may not be able to override a veto.
The Democrats could, however, keep sending Bush a bill that suites the Democrats; they do have the votes.
I suspect that they are trying to make the Republicians look bad.
And I am a Democrat. If they continue, they will lose the edge that they had.
2007-09-20 14:59:20 · answer #3 · answered by Steve B 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's called Congress... "the Democrats" in your question are really serious about ending the war, but Congress requires that you convince 269 people to agree to your legislation. And there's the problem with getting the legislation up for discussion and vote in either house. And the opposition gets amendments put into the legislation to make it more objectionable so no one will want to pass it. And then Bush is going to veto it anyway and there's no way the Dems get 2/3 of both houses to force that bill through.
They aren't strategically stopping the bill from passing to make the Republicans look bad... the Republicans are doing that well enough on their own. The Republican Congressmen don't have enough guts to stand up to Bush... they've deluded themselves into thinking that this "war" is still a good idea... if you watched that first Republican debate, you'll remember how each and every candidate stood up there declaring how we were winning the war! Perhaps they think the Dems will look bad for failing to get the bill passed... i dunno. This war's making everyone look bad.
2007-09-20 16:39:09 · answer #4 · answered by kmnmiamisax 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The Dems tried to enforce a realistic timeline for a pull out attached to funding. Bush vetoed it. He was more prepared to put our troops in danger with restricted funding than look for a way to end the war.
Given this level of irresponsibility by the president it is not surprising that the Dems have determined to ensure our troops are properly funded first and foremost.
To try to spin this the other way and suggest that the Dems are being irresponsible with our troops is really very low.
2007-09-20 15:29:11 · answer #5 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Steve b you are wrong you must be neocon to says the democrats have the votes they don't.
her is the break down
49 democrats 49 republicans 2 independents
the reason the democrats are the majority is because the 2 independents caucus with the democrats,although one Joe Lieberman is really a republican spy who attends democratic meetings for information to give to the republicans.he has voted with the president on virtually every issue,he is a real turncoat.
so as you can see the senate is virtually a tie,you need 60 votes to overturn a presidential veto,so no matter how many bills for funded withdrawal they bring up in the senate they are no where near the 60 votes needed,only 3 or 4 republicans have indicated that they would vote for this bill,that's still about 6 short of what they need to overturn a bush veto.
so bush and his republican clan are responsible for all of this senseless slaughter
Allen Greenspan says the bush war is about oil and it is.
bush does not care who gets killed because he is only interested in turning a profit for himself and his fascist cronies.
bush likes to use terrorism as his weapon to scare the American public into thinking there is a terrorist threat in Iraq,there is no threat and there is no Al Qaida in Iraq.bush calls the Sunnis and shites Al Qaida they are killing american soldiers,because they want us america out of there country,they know we are just there to steal there oil. the term Al Qaida is used alot by george bush because he uses it to scare americans,into believing him.bush is a disgraceful deceitful man,and has no concept of what telling the truth is.
2007-09-20 15:49:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Good question. . . but I also must ask... why aren't the 2008 'top tier' democratic candidates talking about, debating about, ending the war AND stopping the 'IRAN' question?
All lead to the conclusion that the current dem 'top tier' candidates are very excited aobut taking over Bush's new dictator-type administration (ala Clinton presidential directives, executive orders and myriad of bills and so forth passed or shoved upon the American people).
Especially Hillary Clinton- she is practically salivating at the opportunity to pick up the two-family 36-year guantlett of presidential RULE OVER AMERICA.
This must stop and through the debates mentioned above... we can all discern Dr. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate we have to choose from that stands for limited Federal Gov.
2007-09-20 22:21:05 · answer #7 · answered by anyusmoon1 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well, the democrats try to pull money away and the republicans say they don't support the troops. A few months goes by.. kids my age and younger die.. then they bring it up again. Now the democrats are "funding the withdrawal" as opposed to "robbing the troops"..
Blech! It's evil!
2007-09-20 14:32:55 · answer #8 · answered by leedogg1981 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
They are not serious about it. They are trying to play both sides of the isle by pandering. They got elected by doing it in '06 and are now trying to do it again for the '08 election. Hopefully those that voted for them in '06 will wake up this time.
2007-09-20 14:28:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
They're not! Olbermann is an idiot, how can he call himself a journalist when all he does is repeat leftist blogs, he has no idea, the left is playing to the wing nutz, but they know what is really at steak, they'll will only go as far as bashing Bush and our troops...
2007-09-20 14:34:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋