Stretched the Facts’: Dem. Congressman Admits Party Used War to Win Election
- Thread starter meme
- Start date
Annie
Not So Junior Member
evince
Truthmatters
What we ate up was voting for people who knew this war wrong and hurting America.
I tried to tell people that they would not likely be able to stop it with a slim majority.
They did not promise they would stop the war out right that I know but many sure thought they could. There was a slim chance but it depended on some republicans in congress to stop standing in locked step with a failed president. When that became clear then it became clear they could not stop it. So whos fault is it they could not get what the people wanted done now?
I tried to tell people that they would not likely be able to stop it with a slim majority.
They did not promise they would stop the war out right that I know but many sure thought they could. There was a slim chance but it depended on some republicans in congress to stop standing in locked step with a failed president. When that became clear then it became clear they could not stop it. So whos fault is it they could not get what the people wanted done now?
maineman
Banned
If the American people had elected a veto-proof majority for democrats in both chambers, we'd be out of Iraq by now.
Democrats promised to get us out of Iraq but we needed Americans to deliver us the majorities that could make that happen. They didn't.
Hopefully, they won't make that mistake again this fall, but I would never go broke underestimating the American electorate. Most Americans can't find Iraq on a globe. Most Americans do not vote intelligently, they vote emotionally based upon way too little knowledge of what and who they are voting for.... that is no big surprise. It has always been that way.
Democrats promised to get us out of Iraq but we needed Americans to deliver us the majorities that could make that happen. They didn't.
Hopefully, they won't make that mistake again this fall, but I would never go broke underestimating the American electorate. Most Americans can't find Iraq on a globe. Most Americans do not vote intelligently, they vote emotionally based upon way too little knowledge of what and who they are voting for.... that is no big surprise. It has always been that way.
Now here is a throughly brainwashed believer....IF there were only more Dims in both chambers?....
Its the big IF believer...
Dilloduck
Indifferent
uscitizen
Villified User
Now here is a throughly brainwashed believer....IF there were only more Dims in both chambers?....
The repubs just struck down limitations on the Iraq war in the last weeks.
The congressional repubs have become the obstructionists in congress. And yet for some reason the MSM is not whining about it like then the Dems we the fillibusters. I wonder why ?
Darned liberal media ?
uscitizen
Villified User
That must be it---the American electorate are stupid.
Yep they are.
They did elect Bush twice, what more proof do you want ?
maineman
Banned
Now here is a throughly brainwashed believer....IF there were only more Dims in both chambers?....
we can't stop the war without 60 votes in the senate. that's a fact.
Good Luck
New member
Sorry, but that is plain false. If the democrats really wanted to, they could simply not vote in favor of any spending bill that funds the war. It only takes a simple majority in ONE house of congress to keep a spending bill from being passed on to the president, and the democrats have that majority in both houses. Presidential power has no meaning if he has no bill to veto or sign. And the simple fact is the talk of the democratic party WAS that they would no longer fund the war if they could get a majority in congress. Then they backed off.
The reason the democrats have not stopped the war is they are not willing to take on the political consequences of not funding it.
I'll tell you what; I have absolutely f'in had it with strawman arguments equating funding the war to passively allowing it to continue.
They are 2 different issues. You don't stop a war by cutting funding for the troops in the field. I'm not a politician, and I am as anti-war as anyone I know, but I do not and would not support cutting funding as some sort of political maneuver, haphazardly, not knowing what the consequences would be. Chances are that, with a President like Bush, there would be measures taken to secure enough budget to continue the war effort, but at the expense of something important or critical for soldiers in Iraq. It's unacceptable.
It's also a disingenous, dishonest & despicable argument. I'm tired of it.
They are 2 different issues. You don't stop a war by cutting funding for the troops in the field. I'm not a politician, and I am as anti-war as anyone I know, but I do not and would not support cutting funding as some sort of political maneuver, haphazardly, not knowing what the consequences would be. Chances are that, with a President like Bush, there would be measures taken to secure enough budget to continue the war effort, but at the expense of something important or critical for soldiers in Iraq. It's unacceptable.
It's also a disingenous, dishonest & despicable argument. I'm tired of it.
Dilloduck
Indifferent
Then exactly how did the democrats intend to stop the war if it wasn't done through legislation and how come they haven't done it?
Good Luck
New member
I fully agree that defunding an active conflict is a piss poor way of trying to end it. I was in combat zones way too long to promote that as an acceptable method of ending a war. However, I disagree that Bush could somehow maneuver around the lack of funding, thus making defunding a POSSIBLE, but not necessarily acceptable method.
But if you are honest, you would admit that a significant number of democrats ran on EXACTLY that promise: they would end the war by refusing to fund it. That is where the democratic party, IMO, fell down: not in failure to end the war by defunding it, but in making asinine promises to do so.