View Single Post
Old 23-04-07, 09:15 AM   #14
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer View Post
If the they weren't more interested in playing politics the Democrats would work with the president, send him a funding bill he'd be willing to sign, and before you knew it the they would have gained enough political capital to force Bush to begin staged withdrawals. They could say, "We want Iraqis to win this war, not us," and people would support them, myself included. Their cooperation would mean they were looking forward to a positive outcome at the end of the war. Unfortunately they don't give a damn what happens to Iraq in the end, and while Bush is still president every American soldier who dies guarantees their dominance in the next election. They're not in the business of saving lives, which is why this war won't end before 2009.
you're already spreading the blame onto the democrats which serves to make my point. the democrats didn't begin the iraqi invasion. many voted bush the authority but only if truly needed. bush the comander in chief was the only one who could send in the troops and he did so under false pretense, thus abusing that authority. he can remove them from this iraqi civil war whenever he wants, but he won't and the republicans know it. the best they can hope for is to obscure the origin and dissolution of this republican morass and shift it onto democrats.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote