Does it surprise you that the Democrats have stopped pretending to care about stopping the war?

Question

Just because America put them in power to stop the war, doesn't mean they should actually stop the war, does it? Maybe America was really voting to "curb misconduct by contractors"???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

civil, they ARE in power and they are NOT immediately bringing home the troops. The war will end when Congress ends it.

Answer 1

"with Democrats still lacking enough votes to bring troops home, the party runs the risk of concluding its first year in control of Congress with little to show for its tough anti-war rhetoric."

there are still a lot of republicans around who are fighting every move be the dems. witness the poor rating for congress. this poor rating is not because the dems are not doing anything, it's because the republicans are blocking everything (and their president is still in office to veto anything that gets out of hand).

Answer 2

As much as I hate this war, it would be irresponsible to just pull everyone out on, say March 12. We made a terrible mess there, we invaded a country we shouldn't have. We killed thousands of people and destroyed their infrastructure.
We put in mercenaries responsible for their behavior to no one. It will be a blot on our country for years to come.
We need time to see if they can pull it together.
Democrats do not have the power to stop the war and bring the troops home on their own. They simply do not have the votes to override a veto or a filibuster.
In the next election vote Democrat so they can, but don't be surprised if its not a next day event. We have at least some responsibility to try and clean up the mess Bush has left.

Answer 3

That the Democrats have failed to do even the least action to stop this war reveals the depth of their moral cowardice. That they don't even care to pretend that they want to end the war is indicative both of their shamelessness and of their complete disregard for the will of the American people.

One can only conclude that a vote for the Democrats is in no way meaningfully different than just going ahead and voting for the Republicans and their obscene corporate ambitions. It is time that we eulogize the two party system and prepare the way for a multiparty system as the only practical means of preserving and promoting the ideals of democracy.

Answer 4

attempting to instruct around the obtrusive only would not artwork, yet high-quality attempt. The Democrats have on no account claimed to be the moral bastions of our society - that has been the Republicans. The Republicans are people who constantly declare they have each and every of the morals and the Democrats are Godless immoral toddler killers. So whilst their occasion spits up Larry Craigs and Mark Foleys they shrink back like cowards afraid to stand up and say we've been incorrect, we're not to any extent further ethical than Democrats. a minimum of Democrats have a connection to actuality and don't think of themselves the be all and end all of morality in u . s . of america. They understand there are undesirable actors on the two facets of the fence. i'm a Democrat and that i think of Spitzer could desire to have resigned only as he did, and that i think of the whole weight of the regulation could desire to be utilized to him to boot. and that i'm no longer the only Democrat that i've got seen submit that opinion in this website. yet whilst Larry Craig and Foley have been interior the information, Republicans in this website fell throughout themselves protecting them and attempting to deflect interest from it by employing leaving lists of Democrats who had screwed up. as though that replace right into an answer to the hypocrisy confirmed by employing the two a sort of adult men. the two events have hypocritical idiots, yet I for one am uninterested in seeing Republicans proceed to act as though their incidences are few and lots between at the same time as performing love that's a known element for Democrats.

Answer 5

It seems that people don't really think or behave with an appropriate level of responsibility until they're in the hot seat. Until they are in a position where their decision now has serious consequences and as a result they have got to stop expelling methane out their mouths. The democrats have been against this war ever since the day they voted for it. They've undermined every one of the president's efforts to secure America and win the war in Iraq. But when you don't have to answer for anything you say, that's easy. Because they weren't in charge or responsible for anything, they have been able to sit back for years and do nothing but spew senseless vomit from what they believed to be the sidelines. Well, now they are in charge...AND THEY ARE IN CHARGE. After years of using the 'it is a republican controlled congress' excuse, now it's a democrat controlled congress and that rock won't fly. And now that they realize that they will be held to the consequences of their decisions they've learned that, "Hey, surrender isn't such a good idea after all." Even their presidential candidates, to a person, have not been able to commit to surrender.

If nothing else, this re-enforces my sterling belief that their barking and whining was nothing more than political grandstanding and a completely self serving approach to regain political power. Well kiddies, now you have it. How's it working out for you?

Answer 6

America did not "Put them in power" they got a minor majority in Congress in 2006.

And everytime they try to defund the madness in Iraq, the rightwingers start bleating about "They dont support the troops! They're Commie Socialist, Pinko Scumbags who want Osama to win and America to go up in flames!"

If you want the war ended, why do you not blame Bush for putting our troops there in the first place, or the veto threats he makes everytime Congress tries to reign in the madness?

It's EXACTLY this type of "Republican Party First, Even Before God and Country" attitude which lost your Party the majority in Congress in 2006 and if it continues, it WILL lose you the White House.

When did Bush stop pretending to care about Americans?
When did Bush stop pretending to care about Social Security? He had all these grand plans to "privatize" SS, but did nothing
When did Bush stop pretending to care about Border Security? 6 years after the attacks and our borders are more porous now than they were pre- 9/11.
When did Bush stop pretending to care about Fiscal Responsibility? Over NINE TRILLION in debt to Communist China.
When did Bush stop pretending to care about the troops? Sends them to Iraq without body armor or adequate food. Thousands dead, many more thousands maimed for life and they can't even get decent veterans services, because Bush cut over $2 Billion from the VA's budget.

Answer 7

It seems to me that all politicians talk a good story when it comes to getting elected, but when it comes right down to it there is very little difference between them.
It used to be that the guy with the most hair won, now there is a woman in play, so it might be changing.
Perhaps we just ought to go with the one who looks the best so that the representative of our country looks good.
I don't think that voting on the issues makes any difference, once they get in, they all act like weasels.

Answer 8

An interesting spin.
From my perspective, although they understood the folly, they campaigned on ending the war because the voters demanded it.
As congresspersons, the responsibility of such folly would be spread amongst them and the blame could be less designated to a single person, and so some still adhere to the mantra.
The folly would rest squarely on on the President, and so you see no likely candidate claiming to stop the war

Answer 9

The Democrats voted for this war. When the going got tough, they made a conscious decision to deliberately subvert and undermine the effort. They sought political advantage and felt that the only way to insure their political victory was to insure America's defeat. The plan was to keep attacking the president and his cabinet, to magnify every set back and minimize any accomplishment.

The goal was to force the president to withdraw the troops in defeat. Now that things are succeeding, there is precious little mention of Iraq at all.

If the Democrats were truly against this war they should have voted against it before troops gave their lives and limbs to accomplish the task America asked them to do. You do not subvert or undermine their effort once blood has been spilled.

I support anyone who voted against this war, they have that right. But once troops are in harms way, all anyone should hear from the 'loyal opposition' is that they are behind the troops and resolved to win.

By playing this political game they prolonged they war by providing encouragement to the enemy and dishonoring our troops with lies, exaggerations and unwarranted criticism all of which our enemies could plainly see and hear.

Now your Democrats find themselves in a really awkward position. America may actually succeed! Won't that be awful for the people of Iraq and the people of America?

If a Democrat becomes president this next election or anytime in the future and decides to send troops into harms way to partake in a conflict I disagree with, I will scream bloody murder to try to prevent it. Once boots are on the ground I will shut up and give my full support to the troops even if I have to hold my nose to support their Commander-in-Chief. The only thing our enemies would ever see from me is my undying resolve that we will win no matter what it takes.

To show your enemy any weakness in resolve only supports their efforts.

.

.

.

Answer 10

You are right. They never intended to end the war. The played the voters that thought they would and took money from anti-war groups laughing all the way to the bank. They all know a sudden pullout would be disastrous for Iraq and the Middle East. They just wanted to be in power and people who could not see through it put them there.