Has the democratic led congress failed their base by not stopping funding for Iraq?

Answer 1

Absolutely.

How to stop the war? Refuse to vote on any supplemental war spending bill without a timeline for withdrawal. Let Bush veto it. Then send it back to him. Repeat ad nauseum. Eventually someone will cave. Up until now, it's been Congress.

This nightmare could have been over months ago if the Democrats had any backbone.

War spending bills are authorized 6 months in advance. If the spineless Democrats had refused to authorize more spending (as promised) when they took control, the troops would be home now. Blocking a bill now would set a 6 month timeline for withdrawal, bringing them home by summer.

I don't expect them to grow a spine anytime in the near future though...

Answer 2

it's a catch 22. The democratic surge in both houses indicates the general public's dissatisfaction with the war.

However, if the dems push to reduce or stop funding for the war, they'll be quickly labeled as unpatriotic anti americans.

It will take time, probably years to apply the brakes. At least, it is a start.

Also, the "democratic led congress" is not an overwhelming majority. They have a 1-2 seat advantage? This is certainly not a mandate, so you can't expect an overthrow or change of course in the short term.

Answer 3

Yes. The Democratic led congress failed their base and America.

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 4

Absolutely correct! Thats one of the reasons I gave Nancy Pelosi an "F" on another question.
Not that Im sorry, Im glad we're winning the war now and a lot less troops are getting hurt...but she promised her lib base we'd get out (no that I'd cty over that one either!)
but they hace failed.
In fact, the Dem lead congress has brought 69 votes to the floor that somehow try to affect the Iraq war...and the handful that have passed have been successfully vetoed.
As a result, very importanr legislation has been held up and this has created a huge problem.

Answer 5

The House has passed 4 bills that would have stopped or put time lines onto the Iraq funding. The blame can not lie strictly with the House. Two of those bills have reached the president and he has vetoed them, the other two were filibustered in the Senate and never made it out.

Answer 6

No, Although I would think they would like to stop funding but they cannot on the grounds that this will benefit the enemies' bargaining power when negotiating for troop withdrawal or settlements in the future. Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea would in my opinion fit the democrats present position., its not like a poker game where you can cut your losses and run.

Answer 7

Yes but I will still vote in more Dem's if possible as I understand what the game plan is which is to do nothing that motivates the conservatives in short don't give them an issue to rally around and undo the last elections democratic gains. This tact is annoying in the extreme but will pay off in the long run. It grinds on me still that we haven't impeached Bush and Cheney those sleaze balls are very deserving of that honor.

Answer 8

Interesting question. On the one hand, they tried. On the other hand, it seems that they could have tried a lot harder. Right in the middle of the trying, the Bush administration pulled off "the surge" which admittedly helped things, reducing the political will to pull the plug.

The bottom line is that politicians, by definition, are a bunch of spineless losers who ultimately care only about themselves and their political fortunes. This is true of representatives from either party...

Answer 9

Although I want to war stopped, I don't want to leave them over there starving till we get them home. A certain level of financing is required to bring them home. But I agree with Magic. They have a majority now, but it's long from a controlling majority. They're working with what they have the best they can.

Answer 10

No, as the Democratic and Republican parties are actually two factions of the corporate party, they are both representing their base as usual, there's profit to be made in those wars!