Why did Dem reps speak so poorly of the Iraq blunder during the 06 campaigns, yet haven't done a thing after?

Question

...after being elected to stop it? They could, at anytime, block funding for the Iraq blunder. Why haven't they?

Why did they use people to get into office and then not stop the war they spoke so adamantly against while running in 06?

Who was the do-nothing rep who wore his son's combat boots and decried the wasted lives in the war? What has he done since being elected?

Webb promises 'diplomatic solution' in Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/va.senate/index.htm

sociald (below) It is obvious that the Repubs were kicked out over the Iraq war. If not for the war, they would still be in the majority. Don't make excuses for those losers who used people. Start holding them accountable.

-
BTW, I'M NOT A DEM NOR REPUB. I despise Bush for who he is, not for the party he is in. I believe in holding ALL people accountable regardless of a stupid letter D or R by their name. Pretty cut and dry for me. When a person or group is doing wrong, I am against them for the action they have taking OR avoided. Period.
-

Kelly B (below)

=> The Repubs - CANNOT - obstruct the Dems' ability to pull funding. The Dems CAN obstruct the Repubs from funding the Iraq blunder. They have chosen to side with the Repubs and pass the funding.

whirling W dervish (below) Interesting point.

justgoodfolk (below) Agreed! (only read the first part)


kelley B (below) BTW => HI! <= :-)

.

Answer 1

The Republicans are obstructing any significant
attempts by the majority.

The Dems can't sway a certain percentage of the Republicans and they can not override a veto by the President.

It's the Republican party that is holding the U.S. hostage right now, basically!

Answer 2

Political opportunism and cowardice. They do want to stop the war but not looking weak on terror and not being open for a political attack about not supporting the troops is a bigger priority. To summarize they are cowards when the job needs to be done but too willing to use progressive sentiments to get elected. The American people are being duped by a two party system that let's you choose between two sides of the same party. America is a one party state.

After the latest collapse of the Democrats’ antiwar posturing, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois admitted that even with a larger majority the Democrats would have failed to cut off funds for the war. “There are always going to be Democrats who oppose the war but won’t support removing the funding,” he said—inadvertently previewing the conduct of the Democrats under a future Clinton or Obama administration.

The Washington Post summed up its scathing review of the 110th Congress with the comment, “Efforts to change Bush’s Iraq policies took on the look of Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg.” The rout was, indeed, of those dimensions, with one difference: the Confederates at Gettysburg were actually trying to win.

The congressional Democrats came to power because of mass popular opposition to the war in Iraq, but they never genuinely shared in that opposition. The Democratic Party, like the Republican, is an instrument of the American ruling elite which upholds the interests of American imperialism.

While there are, and remain, sharp divisions within the ruling elite over the Bush administration’s foreign policy, which is widely regarded as both incompetent and reckless, these are divisions over tactics and methods, not principle. A future Democratic administration, should one take office in January 2009, will continue the US occupation of Iraq and the effort to establish US hegemony over the Middle East, including control of the Persian Gulf and its vital oilfields.

Answer 3

Maybe it's because it's not a blunder. Maybe they started to see that the majority of America really doesn't want the troops defunded. You (figuratively Chi) can call it defunding the war, but the truth of the matter is it's really defunding the troops. Why else would the Dems not just simply pull the funding? Is it possible that they think if they do, they won't get re-elected next time? I'm not saying this is the case, just looking at the question from another angle.

Answer 4

The representatives have no individual power. They can only accomplish things collectively and with the backing of the president where it comes to the war. They are not likely to back down from Iraq because it is seen as not supporting the troops. The whole country is in a psychological warp. The whole emphasis is national security and globalization which are at complete odds with each other. Even members of the same party do not agree on solutions or the way forward.

Answer 5

Either they thought it would be politically advantageous for them in 08 if Bush's war is still continuing, and they realized that any withholding of war-funds would be portrayed in the "free press" as putting the troops in danger.

Or they too are predominately pro-war, and don't care what the public want.

The truth is there is no excuse, Kucinich was right, they should have cut off the war funding, the US. population voted for just that after all.

That wouldn't have been easy of course, Bush threatened to start laying off military personnel, he would have closed the Pentagon first, then the military keeping the US. mainland safe, anything before ending his lucrative wars.
The media were already saying congress was putting the troops in danger, it would have been a gigantic showdown, but the only responsible course of action.

Answer 6

I can't believe that you are asking this question.

They know that if they actually cut off funding it will turn around and bite them in the butt. The people that would be hurt most if they did block funding would be our own troops. And it might be too obviously hypocritical for a Dem to accuse the president of sending our men over there with insufficient equipment then turn around and block funds for any equipment.
If they really want to do something effective for the country they would pass legislation that would eliminate pork spending unless there is a surplus. Don't hold your breath on that one either though.

Answer 7

Asked this but I am glad, you a Dem, are asking this question Chi. I actually asked this with my first, second and third accounts. People just don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept of corruption in government because let's face it, that is what is going on here. You see I have grown tired of trying to tell people this and that and rah rah rah you know? Because hey people just want to eat, sh*t and die. Pretty much. It is pretty simple. The politicians all know something we don't. All politicians. Don't want to get into it. People just do not want to see the truth know matter how clear it is.

I stand corrected Chi.

You see. Now Justgoodfolk knows the score. I do not like to talk about it anymore as I get suspended. Well I get suspended because I don't word it as he or she does. I tend to get a lot more nasty because idiots bug the sh*t out of me and I find it hard to control my temper.

Answer 8

were they really elected to stop it though?
In my opinion yes there were a vocal group regarding the war.
But, I think many were elected simply because people were not satisfied, or even disappointed with, some of the republican incumbants they replaced. And in many cases I dont blame them.
I think the reasons were partly a bit of a bandwagonning for some people, and various reasons, the war being one of them, among others.

So i think its a myriad of issues and circumstances. But again, its my opinion.

Answer 9

The label Republicans gave Democrats "obstructionist" has turned the other way. Hopefully next years Dems can pad the House and Senate and finally get something done.

Answer 10

I assume they are Faux Dems

Most likely they are fence jumpers like Zell Miller. They ran as Dems because of America's outrage against Bush.