I would like to know what the Democratic Party's position is on solving the war in Iraq?

Question

I have heard many opposite and conflicting views. I am confused as to what they believe, or what exactly is their position on this issue?

Answer 1

I am very confused too... by both Republican and Democrats. I don't see any solutions from the president, the GOP and the Democrats.

Every Republican says the Democrats don't have any solutions but they themselves don't have realistic or concrete resolutions. The Democrats constantly tell us that the GOP doesn't have a plan but don't have one themselves.

Of course, the president is the Commander-in-Chief and actually has the responsibility to conduct war policy... so while I am frustrated with the Democrats I am much more angry at this president.

Answer 2

You've heard opposite and conflicting views because many Democrats disagree on this issue. There is no official position of the Democratic party on Iraq, unless you count the 2004 Democratic platform, which called for greater internationalization.

This will likely differ from the 2008 Democratic platform, since all major presidential candidates favor some kind of phased withdrawl. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are unique among the candidates that they've declared their intention to keep a small residual force. I'm not sure about the others.

Of course, your question might be, "what are the Democrats planning to do right now?" in which case, the answer is "keep sending legislation that will get vetoed by Bush." That's at least the impression I've gotten from Rahm Emanuel, the head of the Democratic Caucus.

Answer 3

One thing that amazes me is that the so-called conservative party seems to completely forget that this war actually has to be paid for at some point. I think they actually believe that these tax cuts are creating so much revenue that the war is being paid for as we go.

The truth is that the war thus far has been paid for by China mostly, and some other countries who are purchasing U.S. Treasury bonds that are accummulating in interest and will have to be repaid to them at some point in the near future with some very high taxes. Of course, that will be when Pres Bush is gone and the democrats will again be accused of high taxation. So, while we are nation building in Iraq, the U.S. will be falling apart.

Right now there are several opposing views in the dem party about Iraq. Richards and Kucinich want to leave Iraq yesterday. Biden wants to divide Iraq up. Hillary says we may be there until after she's no longer president. I would say, if there is a bigger dem majority in 2009, the funding will be cut and we'll be out of there by 2010. That's over two years. Is that long enough for Iraq to build there own nation?

Answer 4

Democrats (as is often the case with minority events) tend to locate it extra handy to be serious than superb. you will see that this for sure with the branch of Lieberman and HClinton.... Lieberman has presently stood for something, on an identical time as Hillary became taking a serious concepts-set to the difficulty handy. I.e. it rather is extra handy to make somebody seem undesirable then to look good your self, for this reason the republican front has in reality challenged the democrats to return up with concepts rather than grievance... i'm conservative, yet no longer inevitably a republican, asserting those i'm valuable hundreds of examples like that's usually delineated in each and every political vote casting years via fact the commencing up of our united states of america

Answer 5

It's puzzling alright. Here are some quotes about the Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton, during a recent debate.

"Clinton responded that she would maintain combat troops only for counterterrorism purposes. "The vast majority of our combat troops should be out," she said."

"Only Sen. Chris Dodd and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said they could promise to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term in 2013."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-26-democratic-debate_N.htm?csp=34

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

When 3 Republicans proposed a time line for Iraq in the senate the Democrats turned it down.

"I don't support it at all," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It doesn't do anything."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_18

Read these articles and see what conclusions you come up with. They don't seem to be earnestly looking to get out of Iraq as quickly as they say to me as 2013 is a long time away and even that is not guaranteed.

Answer 6

You can't give a detailed position on Iraq, because
1/ They don't know the true situation there
2/ That might change considerably be time they take over
3/ "It would embolden the enemy", (George says)

Better question the Republican position, they have control

Answer 7

Dems want to abandon OUR President Bush's legacy by leaving Iraq to Iraqis!!!

Fortunately they do not have the votes to overcome our opposition. Sorry dems, we will expand this war and dump it in your laps.

The only way to peace is for our enemies to surrender, we need to control those resources. We WILL take them.

Answer 8

So would everybody else. I have heard nothing resembling a plan yet, only their 'good' intentions.

Answer 9

The lefts position? Cause the evil United States to lose and make certain it looks like Bushs' fault, not theirs.

Answer 10

Me too! I am also concerned about acts of terror and how are they planning to protect us.

Good question.