What are the consequences of having a Democratic President take ofer the war in Iraq?
143318
Our troops would get to come home. People would stop dying for a LIE. We would stop spending billions on somebody else's country. (Wasn't the OIL supposed to pay for the war?) We would stop giving the cushy contracts to Halibutron at taxpayer expense. We would get to spend some of the money going to Iraq on domestic problems: pick your favorite, we have enough domestic problems to go around. Need I go on?
212218
I am afraid that it will never be over. Bush is going to pull troups out of Iraq this year to help repuglicans get elected, but then they will be back someplace like Iran, or North Korea. 3 years and we get rid of the sob, unless he declares himself King for life, which in that case there will be a civil war right here.
704954
Not me.  The ending of a war is determined on the battlefield, not with what happens in a political election.\n\nI hope the Dems realize that troops should be withdrawn when the job is done -- not when it's politically expedient for them.\n\nThat's what happened in Vietnam -- the antiwar left convinced our leaders that we had to leave, they convinced our country that we were in a "quagmire," and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians soon became dead or exiled as a result.   \n\nA hasty withdrawal from Iraq would yield similar results.\n\n.
771577
Yes, our military involvement in Iraq will end, whether it's called a war, police action, or whatnot. At the very least, a president -- likely not the current one -- will simply declare victory, or mission accomplished, and then pull the troops out. Very much like what occurred in Vietnam. But if we settle for this sort of "victory," we may well face dire consequences as a result. \n\nI certainly hope we are able to bring our troops home after they have truly accomplished their mission. Are they very far away from doing that? From the news reports it certainly seems a distant thing.
903715
Nothing to do with 9-11. The Bushies wanted to add power to the presidency. The easiest way to do that is to go to war somewhere. The whole thing was decided even before Bush was elected. Drum up a war with Iraq so he could be a "War President," and thus get the extra juice in constitutional powers...and get an extra bump as an incumbent pres, since most all wartime presidents are reelected.
780107
I only listened to a little of his speech.  I thought that, overall, he is very conciliatory.  What was very concerning for me is the thought that the Democrats will in the next three to four years find a way to pull out of Iraq and leave it to chaos and eventual rule by Jihadists.  Unlike Vietnam, Jihadists are able and willing to attack us at home in the US.  Their goal is to convert or kill every man, woman and child. I don't want that fighting here.  I think it's time for me to take up shooting sports.
1151746
I opposed going in. However,\n\nIf we leave now, chaos will result. Kurds vs. Shiites vs. Sunnis vs. Al Qaeda. It may be that civil war is inevitable anyway. If the US pulls out before the (hopefully) democratic government of Iraq can raise a reliable, well-trained army to protect itself and the common Joe Iraqi, the troops who have dies really will have died for next to nothing - especially while Saddam is still alive. No, Bush stepped our foot into this. Its too soon to wipe it off.\n\nThe bigger problem is knowing when it will be okay to leave. Our fearless President has failed entirely to define the criteria for "victory." Of course, this leave him (and the US) the option of staying on indefinitely.
872776
The CIC still controlls the military, so don't expect the Democrats to do much. Sounds to me like they just used the war to get elected in. Now they do not care.
1048445
My husband was deployed to Iraq for a year leaving me with a 1 year old and missing the birth of his daughter.  My thoughts on the war, stop trying to take over other country's when you cant even take care of your own. ( as far as the president is concerned)
944339
What would happen?  The civil war and mass killings would happen sooner instead of later, and the US and Iraqis being killed daily would not be.\n\nYou don't go into a country until you're invited, and the US wasn't.  Even *with* Saddam in charge, the Iraqis never wanted the US to invade.  \n\nIt's the same story in Iran: the democratic forces don't want the US to invade, they want the US to fluck off and stop harassing their country.  (It WAS the US, after all that overthrew the Iranian DEMOCRACY in 1953 to impose the Shah....)\n\n\n.
337554
Actually when the Liberals take over the House and the Senate, they are going to make you pay your taxes, and back taxes you owe America. Then when the new Democrat President is elected you might get audited by the IRS.
1155113
Nope. it's fun being the president because you can stir up a hornet's nest and then run like hell when they attack. Same thing with LBJ and Vietnam. He charged into the war blinded by his own agendas and when it came time to run for office, he spilt. The war will have to continue when the next president steps in. America is too deep into it now. I think now it's a matter of sticking it out until the end or tucking tail and running from it.
696345
I don't know about that, but I do know that the dems will now be forced to work WITH the president instead of just shooting off their mouths. Since they have the majority, if nothing gets done, it WILL be blamed on them. They can't simply obstruct any longer.
815333
Here's what bothers me most:  Democrats and Republicans voted for this war .  We were tired of Saddam making a mockery out of the UN, its resolutions and inspections.  There were countries in the UN that were undermining the entire effort and making billions while Saddam was in power.\nWE wanted war to remove a serious threat.  But now that we've experienced it,  these same politicians act as if they knew better from the beginning.   The president and legislature acted out the will of the American people.  Bush shouldn't be blamed.
698760
Neither. The only thing that will happen is bush will put another person who thinks like Rumsfeld in his place. There will be no change in that aspect. However, the person taking his place has to deal with a Democratic Congress, so now he needs to come up with an exit strategy. Rumsfeld didn't feel like dealing with it. That's why he "cut and ran"...
795135
John Kerry will apologize, and he won't apologize.  He really messed up the Democrats.  "YEAH!"  Just be thankful that he isn't our president!  WOW that would be scary.\n\nWe would be fighting a war in the United States.
979663
Not much different ... Iraq is a tough call though ...I think that the collection of advisors and administration personnel who were in this Whitehouse in 2002-2003 sent us to war there.  In a Quale administration it would be a safe bet to say that most of those folks would be in his administration as well.  What the outcome would have been is a different story.