Why are the Democrats not listening to the American people?

[StandtoRise6]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/22/war.funding/index.html

I am completely fed up with the Democrats now. We elected them into the majority for one reason only, TO STOP THE WAR! What do they do instead? They give into Bush and the war hawk Republicans.

This is a total disaster for their party and is creating more and more of a protest to Congress. I remember seeing Congress having a lower approval rating than Bush! And we all know how low Bush's approval rating is right now...

If the Democrats aren't going to end this war, who is? I know there are scattered members of the party that want us out of their (hail Dennis Kucinich ). However, Harry Reid and Nanci Pelosi are playing politics while blood is being shed over there everyday. I am so sick of the two party system ! We need more choice, aren't we supposed to be the almighty democracy in the world? Aren't the people supposed to be represented? I sure as hell am not, along with millions of other Americans.

 

[Warbsywoo]

I am completely fed up with the Democrats now. We elected them into the majority for one reason only, TO STOP THE WAR! What do they do instead? They give into Bush and the war hawk Republicans.

Possible reason for this:
They don't want to disrupt the political system right now.
Sure the people elected them to stop the war, but taking this course might be the best for now, for the interests of national balance. They will change it when, or if, they get power.

If the Democrats initiate a split in the national government by refusing to pass bills and hindering the Republican presidency and such, where would the country go from there?

I wouldn't necessarily call it giving in, more like doing what is best for now for the interests of the nation.

At least, that's what I think.

 

[StandtoRise6]

Possible reason for this:
I wouldn't necessarily call it giving in, more like doing what is best for now for the interests of the nation.

The country's interest is to leave Iraq. Anyone who hasn't been under a rock knows that the overwhelming majority want us out of their. This has nothing to do with a "balance". This is a life or death situation we are dealing with here

I know exactly what Bush is trying to do, he knows the war is a failure. This is his reputation at stake however, so is he going to give it up? Well, in his eyes, "surrendering" is the ultimate humiliation. Lest we forget, LBJ isn't remembered for his denial to surrender, he will always be remembered as the President who led America into an unnecessary war and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of our finest.

Bush is going to try and milk out the time in his presidency without pulling out of Iraq. He wants the next President to have to deal with the mess, that way he will feel like Mr. tough guy.

The Democrats should recognize this and do a full court push. Bush has no problems being his stubborn self, why should the Democrats have to put up with it? They are so worried about this war affecting their 2008 elections. Well, anyone who supports this war now sure isn't going to vote democrat, I can tell you that. I think they would actually gain the trust of the American people because they listened to their loud and clear voice. It would be a benefit to come out strong and bring an end to this war.

 

[Warbsywoo]

But they aren't going to vote Republican either if the only issue regarding the elections is the war in Iraq, are they?

The decisions and mindset of the people alone cannot dictate what a political party will or must do. It is up to a party's interests. The party's overall mindset is funneled from the people that they are appealing to when to when they say stuff like, "Let's get out of Iraq" and whatnot.

The interests of the nation, I should have made it clear, is not directly relative to the interests of the people.
Backing out of Iraq with the Democrats opposing the Republicans now, so close to 2008, would either split the country in half --- one half supporting the Reps. and the other supporting the Dems. --- or receive a loss in foreign support. The interests of the nation, in short, is the overall survival guide that will keep the U.S. going.

 

[Howl]

You're quite right.
"We the people" seemingly isn't a tactical approach to this kind of thing anymore. There are a whole lot of people who want to be at war right now too; but for all the wrong reasons. The politicians can't represent a lot of the public's ideas because they're just as nonsensical as the democracts own actions seem to the rest of us.
But for a democratic party to suggest continuing this war at a time like this...I personally thought that the democrats would "rescue" us from the embarrasment, the hostility, and the uncessesary death. =\

 

[Fields]

(Before I start, I'm very liberal, and vote Democrat)

Did you people even read the article? Seriously. At least even know how the politics of the United States work?

Do you really think now that Dems have the majority of the House, they can up and remove our troops right now? Checks and balances...wiki it.

This ENTIRE THING is about the Democrats doing what they can to stop the war in Iraq...it's pretty implicit right here:

They said Democrats won't give up on a deadline for pulling troops out of Iraq, hoping to write language into defense appropriations and defense authorization bills over the summer.

We're setting benchmarks, we're limiting the amount of money that can be spent. And they TRIED setting a date for this war to end.

Bush vetoed a bill last month that included a timetable for withdrawing troops.

Once again, checks and balances. Wiki it.

I'm not going to write an essay here, although I easily can. I just pray that you won't be 18 by 2008 elections.

 

[StandtoRise6]

Did you people even read the article? Seriously. At least even know how the politics of the United States work?

Do you really think now that Dems have the majority of the House, they can up and remove our troops right now? Checks and balances

I really don't understand if you claim yourself to be a liberal, then why are you supporting a hawk viewpoint?

I know how the check and balance system works, but can you really defend the constitution in a time like this when it has been violated numerous amounts of times?

Illegal domestic spying program (violating the 4th amendment)
USA Patriot Act (violating the 4th amendment)
Waterboarding Techniques used in interrogation (violating the 8th amendment)

These are just a few to name. What about trust and truthfulness to the American people? George W. Bush and his administration have lied about this war from the start!
1. There were no WMDs
2. There was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda
3. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq (not even any of the supposed hijackers was Iraqi descent, most were Saudi Arabian)

Again, I could go on but I am short of time at the moment.

I'm not going to write an essay here, although I easily can. I just pray that you won't be 18 by 2008 elections.

I am going to be 18 for the primary in Illinois and 19 for the general election.

I respect your viewpoint, but it is not just to criticize me or other people for having different beliefs than yourself. This is a democracy, to discourage voting from fellow citizens is going against your own country.

 

[Fields]

I really don't understand if you claim yourself to be a liberal, then why are you supporting a hawk viewpoint?

I know how the check and balance system works, but can you really defend the constitution in a time like this when it has been violated numerous amounts of times?

Illegal domestic spying program (violating the 4th amendment)
USA Patriot Act (violating the 4th amendment)
Waterboarding Techniques used in interrogation (violating the 8th amendment)

These are just a few to name. What about trust and truthfulness to the American people? George W. Bush and his administration have lied about this war from the start!
1. There were no WMDs
2. There was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda
3. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq (not even any of the supposed hijackers was Iraqi descent, most were Saudi Arabian)

Again, I could go on but I am short of time at the moment.



I am going to be 18 for the primary in Illinois and 19 for the general election.

I respect your viewpoint, but it is not just to criticize me or other people for having different beliefs than yourself. This is a democracy, to discourage voting from fellow citizens is going against your own country.

You clearly don't know crap. Or read anything. At all. Stop posting before I embarrass you. Politics are my life. Don't even try to tell me how I can't be 'liberal.'

You are claiming that the Democrats aren't trying to end the war, referencing an article which clearly shows the opposite. You claim that Dems give into 'Bush and the hawk Republicans,' when in reality they are doing everything within their power to end this war in a timely fashion. What more do you suggest the House does to overcome a veto from Bush? Riot? Are you fucking serious?

You then go on to point out facets of the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 for no apparent reason, as there wasn't one pro-war statement in my entire post.

You obviously have not been following the House and the bills they've been trying to pass as of late, yet you bash Democrats for not ending the war. I'll try to break it down so even you can understand:

Since the Dems won majority of the House and evened out the Senate, they've been negotiating a bill that puts an end to the war in Iraq. However, majority and even isn't really enough to pass a bill, since 2/3s of each branch must vote 'yay' for it to be passed. 54% (what the dems control of the House, I believe) is significantly less than 66%. 50% is even less than that. So they have to negotiate a bill that even Republicans can agree upon, as even they want to get out of Iraq at some point.

As of last week, we finally agreed upon a bill to be passed that would place a date on slowly but surely taking military forces out of Iraq. But, because of checks and balances, which you clearly don't know crap about, regardless of what you say, as per your posts so far, the bill has to go through the President. That is, Bush. Bush didn't want to put a date on demilitarization of Iraq, so he veto'd it. Reps run the Supreme Court, so they let it slide (checks and balances, wiki it). The bill went back to the House.

Because they couldn't put a date on demilitarization, the House now is trying to pass an almost identical bill, just removing the 'timeline' aspect of it, put instead placing 'benchmarks.' In addition, they are ensuring that there is limited spending on this war, so G Dubs isn't playing with a blank check and able to spend on and send an unlimited number of resources overseas. This will hopefully be passed. But will likely be veto'd by Bush.

If it was up to me, we would never have gone to war with Iraq. And we would have all our troops safe at home. But it isn't up to me. Or you. America isn't as 'free' or as great a 'democracy' as it was originally intended to be. But to answer your question:

If the Democrats aren't going to end this war, who is?

The Democrats. Just not today. Because they can't. Because their hands are tied.

Now go tell your parents to vote for Obama.

 

[Gaaramaster]

Fields........I wanted to say stuff like that, but you got there first........

But odds are, the democrats can't get america out of Iraq until a democrat is president. So t'll either be Obama or Clinton.