Do the Democrats want to stop funding the effort?
2007-11-16 05:19:47 · 14 answers · asked by kirk m 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Ohiofire, I'm asking a serious question. Try to be serious with the answers. According to your logic, we lost WWII. We still have bases in Germany and Japan.
2007-11-16 06:01:11 · update #1
Yes, we are, and, as the party that has said for years "We can't win the war!" and "The war is lost!" the Dems have painted themselves into a corner.
Completing the winning of the war will show the Dems up as the Weak Sisters they are and they must do everything in their power to ensure that we do not win. They could care less about the consequences.
2007-11-16 05:24:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because they have heavily invested in defeat. Ried has said that we lost over a year ago. It is really sad that they play politics with war. The extreme left has hijacked the Democrats and they have had to pander to them because they are the base. What they fail to realize is that they would be on better footing if they actually got a clue as to what people in this country want. They have been deluded by the media into believing that the last election was about Iraq. According to people that actually voted, government corruption was the number one concern of voters. Iraq was number 4. And to break it down even further, it was not so much pulling out of Iraq that was a concern, but changing strategy. If the last election was about Iraq, and we all know that the Democrats have done little else in Congress but to try and derail Iraq, why are they so dismally low in approval ratings?
2007-11-16 13:23:53 · answer #2 · answered by JAY O 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They only proposed the recent bill in order to regain the headlines. They knew it would never pass the Senate. So much for working on something constructive.
They quit 2 years ago, but if things end up going well they'll just change their stance. Many of them authorized the war before condemning it. What else is new? Hillary Clinton is their candidate. Elliott Spitzer is my governor. It's all about the headlines and polls. Clinton waited until Spitzer backed away on licenses for illegals, and once she saw the backlash from voters in NY, she suddenly switched. Again. No backbone.
The Surge worked, but the Democrats don't want that.
2007-11-16 13:24:27 · answer #3 · answered by Stereotypemebecauseyouknow 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The original mission was to throw Saddam Houssein out of power. That was accomplished. Now, we are trying to bring democracy to the country. That is not going to happen anytime soon because of their "civil war". So, are we really winning? We need to pull the troops out of Iraq now or it will be a blood bath like the Korean war and the Vietnam war. We knew when to get out of Somalia so why cant we learn from previous lessons?
Retired Combat Veteran
21 yrs., US Army
2007-11-16 14:30:18 · answer #4 · answered by mnid007 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They do not want to stop the funding. They need to postpone the bill until after they begin the primary caucus process. This way it will not interfere with the selection of their candidate. Once the caucus begins they will approve the bill without strings.
2007-11-16 13:24:43 · answer #5 · answered by rance42 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do you think it will look Democrats look if people actually knew what was going on over there, much less if we actually were winning? Any progress in Iraq makes them look bad for constantly trying to hamstring and trip up the military; so spinning it any way possible to always look bad makes them--and their actions--look good. Or so they think.
2007-11-16 13:29:31 · answer #6 · answered by ಠ__ಠ 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because the enemy is running out of bodies and weapons. It has also helped that Iran is stopping at least some of the flow of weapons in Iraq. I think they figured we were just about fed up with it.
2007-11-16 13:35:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is the APPEARANCE that we are winning because they fear that we will pull out otherwise. The last thing the terrorist want is for us to leave Iraq because the longer we stay the more world wide hate we generate.
2007-11-16 14:50:11 · answer #8 · answered by tom l 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Win" or "lose," they haven't seemed very serious about stopping the funding. Apparently they don't want to be accused of "not supporting the troops." Doesn't make much sense to me, but that's what I hear.
2007-11-16 13:29:07 · answer #9 · answered by yutsnark 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Winning?....... at the moment with a buildup of US troops the viloence has decreased in Baghdad.....unfortunately there has been no process on the political front to preserve that decreaseafter we leavee....so yes...if you consider leaving troops in the city from now till the end of time a win, we are winning........ I myself will consider it a win when we have no more troops in the country
2007-11-16 13:29:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋