.
December 4th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

Why is there only bipartisanship when military is involved?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Bipartisanship in Washington is virtually non-existent these days - except for President Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan.

U.S. Marines are pictured wading through a canal in Afghanistan's Helmand Province.

U.S. Marines are pictured wading through a canal in Afghanistan's Helmand Province.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll - conducted after the president's speech this week - shows his plan wins approval from 63 percent of Democrats, a whopping 72 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Independents. Gee, with a consensus like that you could actually run the country.

The president is getting thumbs-up from people more inclined to extend their middle fingers when it comes to things Democratic. Karl Rove says that the president's speech "deserves to be cheered" and insists victory is attainable.

Newt Gingrich is out praising President Obama for showing political courage on Afghanistan... in going against the anti-war left in his own party.

This is not to say that there aren't critics of the president's Afghanistan strategy in both parties, but on the whole, he's getting support - at least for now. If it doesn't go as planned, all bets are off. But at least for a few minutes we have the leadership of the country agreeing on something.

And this isn't just about President Obama and Afghanistan. The Democrats had no love lost for President George W. Bush but were mostly afraid to buck him on the wars.

Here’s my question to you: Why is it the only time there is bipartisanship is when the military is involved?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Bob from Kentucky writes:
The reason there is bipartisanship when the military is involved is that the "military-industrial complex", which President Eisenhower warned was a serious threat to the nation’s well-being, has both the Republican and the Democrat members of Congress in its hip-pocket.

Patricia in Boise, Idaho writes:
Sadly, it's not really bipartisanship, it's that Obama happens to fall on the Republican side of the issue because he is escalating the war. They understand the "kill more bad guys" approach to problems. That's also why they're struggling with the "know when to call it quits" strategy, which is more nuanced and, therefore, too complex for the average Republican.

Simon from New York writes:
The only reason why bipartisanship exists when the military is involved is because politicians are afraid of going against the war and being perceived as weak or even un-American. It’s no surprise, most politicians are cowards.

McPherson from Spanish Fort, Alabama writes:
There will always be "bipartisanship" when it is time to make money!

Roger writes:
It’s because both sides of the aisle are terrified of being accused of not supporting the troops in a combat situation. Also – it’s because military production and bases are big (HUGE) business, and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in their districts. Stop and think of what would happen to the GERMAN economy if we pulled our troops out. Whole cities would lose their economic well being.

John from Brentwood, Tennessee writes:
Jack, Bipartisanship exists exclusively for military affairs because we are a nationalistic society. Historically, it has been seen as unpatriotic, and therefore unpopular, to oppose the military in almost any regard. Politicians are in the business of reelection, and they will always find themselves on the "right" side of this issue.


Filed under: Bipartisanship • US Military
soundoff (168 Responses)
  1. Paul, Austin, Texas

    Because war means mega bucks for the defense industry. That industry knows how to play the game. It is strange that we always have enough money to go to war isn't it. We should all be behind our troops even if we do not like whatever war it is at the time but we should not give the defense industry a blank check that we have done for as long as I remember. The true why comes down to money money money to get the contract to pay lobbyist and grease the plams of the ones in the house and senate.

    December 4, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
  2. Fred, White Plains

    Because just like the schoolyard bully, the Republicans are only your
    friend when they want you to fight, Jack.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
  3. Conor in Chicago

    Because all of the rich benefit from arms deals and the "free market". and all of our "leaders" are rich.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  4. Terry, Chandler AZ

    I was asking colleagues and clients this question this question Wednesday and Thursday. The aanswer: It is patriotic when one acknowledges full support of a war. It does not matter whether the American voter approves of the war or not. Patriots approve.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  5. J.D. in N.H.

    There isn't bipartisanship for that either. Republicans are hell bent on saying "no" to anything and everything proposed by Democrats or the Obama administration. This morning, when the job numbers were slightly improved, Mr. Boehner was front and center deriding the progress. Until the country is the priority and not the party, there can never be bipartisanship.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  6. Jane J

    Perhaps they actaully want some national security.
    Jane J
    WI

    December 4, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
  7. Tom in Atlanta

    Because Republicans are five year old children who want to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
  8. Rick Medina,OH

    Jack,

    Members of Congress are not afraid of the military. In fact, they often excoriate them in hearings and in press releases. On the other hand, they are very afraid of their constituents, and how they would react if they do not vote the military's way. I'm a constituent who says we don't really have a beef with anyone ... just send my son and nephews home.

    Rick, Medina, OH

    December 4, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
  9. Tom in Desoto, Tx

    Perhaps the military makes everyone nostalgic and they can wear their lapel pins that were made in China to show just how patriotic they really are…as they send other’s off to war when they, in most cases, avoided military service.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  10. Lance, Ridgecrest, Ca

    Jack, wait a minute. There is NOT true bipartisanship for the military. It just happens to be a different division of support. Haven't you listened to Congress? This is conservatives/moderates vs liberals/ultra-liberals. The 2 sides are just as hostile towards each other as Dems/Repubs are about other issues. The only truely bipartisan thing Congress has done lately is vote themselves a huge pay raise while freezing Senior's cost of living, and raising our monthly Medicare fees 25% during the next 3 years.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
  11. southerncousin

    The military is actually a function of the federal government provided for in the Constitution. Most of the rest of the crap they shove down our throats comes from liberal activists trying to change the Constitution with out a referendum and the liberal judges like Leahy and the rest of them put on the courts. Obama, one and done.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
  12. Tony from Southport

    Maybe it's because without the military, you wouldn't have a column, they wouldn't have a job, and this country would be speaking German or Japanese as the National Language.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
  13. roger

    Because both sides of the aisle are terrified of being accused of not supporting the troops in a combat situation. Also because military production and bases are big (HUGE) business, and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in their districts. Stop and think of what would happen to the GERMAN economy if we pulled our troops out. Whole cities would lose their economic well being. Imagine what would happen if we cut back on our troops here, and reduced the demand for war related equipment!

    December 4, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
  14. george

    First time I have ever heard this question posed, but have wondered the same thing for a long time now. It certainly is because they are always right because the last time I looked we had lost the last few wars that we have been. I think it is time that we sit down , and take a good look at this. If we took as much pride in out economy as we do the military, we wouldn't be in this mess now.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  15. Jane (Minnesota)

    Because war seems to be the only issue the Republicans are interested in supporting. Washington behavior is really getting to be replusive to me.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  16. Joe CE

    Most lawmakers are afraid to appear hostile to the military – unpatriotic. The premise that this is the only thing involing bipartisn support is an overstatement. The Afgan troop increase will be a test of your theory.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
  17. Adam Simi Valley, CA

    That's a softball, Jack. While we all may disagree on the future direction of our country and the role government should play in it, we all still love our country and most people will agree, regardless of party affiliation, that it is worth protecting and responsibility of a common national defense resides with the Government. I believe most people want the best for our country and just disagree on the path to prosperity. God Bless our Troops.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
  18. Bob, Springfield, IL

    I think all politicians are scared to make any comment regarding any military issue in anything but a positive light. Republicans use the military to put on a face of patriotism which is the reason for their "no questions asked" approach to all things military. Start war anytime, anywhere, against anyone. Democrats will complain, to no end, about military conflicts but rarely have the backbone to do anything about it.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
  19. pat in lexington, Ky.

    Because the Republicans are hawkish and so will vote for accelerating troop involvement. If Obama had announced that the U.S. is pulling out of Afghanistan, bipartisanship would have gone out the window.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
  20. ken, nj

    There is bipartisanhip because there is big money involved. 100,000 defense contractors, like halliburton, and blackwater will make billions and spread it around the congress. Another trillion will be spent in afghanistan and most will go to the defense contractors, physical and mental rehabilitation for the troops. By the time obama leaves office in 2016 (yes the voters are dumb) the national debt will triple, and main street wil not be any safer or richer. Have a blood merry christmas.

    December 4, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  21. gord ontario

    because war is the base of the republican party the war is profit these people with know war in site they will go and find one or make one,

    December 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  22. JENNA

    Why is it the only time there is bipartisanship is when the military is involved?

    Good question.

    Let's ask the Republicans why they have been nothing but obstructionists and the party of NO.

    They need to stop acting like SORE LOSERS and like lawmakers again!

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    December 4, 2009 at 3:02 pm |
  23. Ray Lao

    because we are all americans .....black ,chineese, indians, whites, republicans,and dems were all americans and those are ...our boys in over seans fighting for me and you jack

    December 4, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  24. Michael Alexandria, VA

    Because the defense lobby gives to both sides, Jack.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
  25. Harold, in ANCHORAGE, AK

    Unlike the '60s. it is now politically incorrect to be anti-military. Few from any party want to be seen as that.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
  26. Bob Louisville

    The reason there is bipartisnship when the military is involved is that the "military-industrial complex", which President Eisenhower warned was a serious threat to the nations well being, has both the Republican and the Democrat members of Congress in its' hip-pocket.

    Bob
    Louisville, Ky

    December 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  27. Ken in Mt

    There is bipartisanship as more resources are going to the right wing backers of the Republican party. If there were to be military cutbacks you would be hearing screams of unilateral disarmament, cutting and running, and abandoning our mission and obligations to the world, and more than likely allegations of a "domino theory".
    The military is a one way street, it only goes up in cost and demands on resources. If you are to pare it back you are unpatriotic and putting us all at risk. It reminds me of the movie"Dr Strangelove" 's mine shaft gap
    it seems that we buy off the arms merchants or we hear endless stories of how we are in peril and now must live in fear.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  28. Danes Basilisk

    Because we have been worshiping the military ever since we won WW2. That victory for a righteous cause by heroic mortals has been spun into a golden myth of ultimate good versus evil, with America as the Saviour Nation and each soldier an angel of divine justice. We have long lost our grounding on the reality of soldiers, most being young men with no other skill or career-path, and many being flawed or contorted to kill. No, soldiers are treated the same way as saints of medieval Europe: their dead bodies are venerated to the point of worship, and any mortal flaw is whitewashed for the cause de jour.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
  29. Christian the Great

    Because our Congressional leaders don't want to sound like complete jerks! They don't want to seem less patriotic, by fighting amongst and refusing to drop for the people who are risking their lives so they can argue freely, and plus it'll hurt their public image.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
  30. Linda Williams San Francisco

    Jack The answer to that question is because the republicans are war hogs. They only care about killing and trying to prove that they are tougher than the other countries. The only person that served in the military was John Mccain and the others, including Bush did all they could not to serve. They don't care about the many young men and women that are being killed and injured only to return home without the proper medical care. I feel that these wars were started under false pretense in the first place.I understand the president has to do what he think is right and after all he is closer to the needs than we are. It is a shame that the republicans can't become interested in helping to get the healthcare reform passed.What a bunch of losers!!

    December 4, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
  31. A. Smith, Oregon

    Jack its obvious, the Republican lawmakers have been in the pockets of the defense contractors since Vietnam. When it comes to re-election campaign funds, they give millions to those that grease the wheels of war.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
  32. Tom, Avon, Me, The Heart of Democracy

    Do you see the surprise amongst the 30 Republican Senators who voted against rape victim protection? They never expected the media to pick up on the Franken amendment in response to the Baghdad rape of Jamie Lee Jones, what with balloon boy, and state dinner party freaks.

    The military is different. There is always media coverage. Lobbyists like Paul Rieckoff and other vets see it as a sacred duty to protect those still on the battle field and those who have survived. The lack of body armor, armored vehicles, they knew their votes would be watched.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
  33. Tom from Philly

    IT is called the path of least resistance. Democrats will use the military to show they are strong, and a Republican minority knows this is the only way they can keep the perma-war-machine fired up.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
  34. Richard Green

    Jack,

    There is bipartisanship involving the military because:
    1) the companies benefiting the most from the $700 billion dollar defense budget make sizable contributions to members of both parties.
    2)most politicians are afraid to vote against anything involving the military or defense.
    3)having failed at everything else, the politicians can point out how they have "supported the troops".

    Rich Green
    San Clemente, Ca

    December 4, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  35. John from Alabama

    Jack: Because the Republicans are blood thirsty group, and the Democrats are afraid not to support the troops. Maybe it is because war is good for business in my congressional districit and everyone wants to kill those godless folks. Maybe it is because we have such a good Veterans Administration handling things, yeah. Jack, just chose a reason, but remember only young people will die.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
  36. Russ in PA

    Because both parties are war parties. Both are convinced they have the right reason to wage war, regardless of the cost or outcome. Both parties are morally corrupt. Ron Paul in 2012...

    December 4, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
  37. vdH in Mansfield, Ohio

    Pretty simple ... because the democrats are afraid to say NO (i.e., can't say no to the soldiers), and the republicans are chomping at the bit to say YES (keep that war machine going)!

    December 4, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  38. Jerry Johns Creek, GA

    Jack, voting to support our Military does not produce bipartisanship it produces protectmybuttisanship. Congressmen know that if they do not support our mIlitary they will not get support from their constituents. The only thing these elected officials can agree on are actions that will protect their jobs.

    December 4, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
  39. gerry in toronto

    Because the GOP love wars, it gives them a chance to play with their guns against real targets.Of course, no way do they support the kids when they come home.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:06 pm |
  40. fred hughes

    Because Republicans ge a lot of money from military providers.

    Fred
    Livingston, AL

    December 4, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  41. Dan, Chantilly VA

    War is the only time when everyone in America can say "we're right, they're wrong" and be talking about the same people. We might not always agree on the particulars of how to fight them, but I doubt there's many people who will argue the Taliban are innocent defenders of justice. Every other political issue comes down to an argument about who we should be blaming.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  42. Hugo Kijne

    Because nobody wants to create the impression that they're playing politics with the armed forces (even if they do).

    December 4, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  43. pat in michigan

    because the Constitution provides for the Federal Govt. to provide for the National Defense.Infrastructure and funding of Education I believe.Maybe I am wrong Do you know the answer?

    December 4, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  44. ej in Tacoma

    I thought President Obama's speech was done beautifully he definitely knows how to make words sings. He was thoughtful and yet set himself up strategically as well as politically. Although I don't agree with escalating the war scenario in that region I think Obama has no choice in this matter we can't leave our troops stranded and in limbo. This was a bold move and perhaps the reason he has a larger Right Wing following on this military matter.
    EJ in Tacoma

    December 4, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  45. Jeremy in Albuquerque

    Because nearly all US citizens have friends or family members who have been, are, or will be, deployed to serve in our foriegn wars. It would be nice if there were such broad support for our non-military citizens as well...

    December 4, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  46. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    Now if you want to tell the American people the truth Jack, here it is; All of the Senators have stock in companies that make supplies for wars and our economy depends on war.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  47. Chris - Ottawa, Canada

    Because both parties are slaves to the military industrial complex.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  48. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Jack first off none of these politicians are going to have to go and fight this war themselves. if that were the case it would be so quiet in congress you could hear a pin drop. I think it has to do a lot with trying to appease constitutes. There is not one elected official that doesn't have military families in their state or district. To not support the military they would lose voters The president is their commander and chief even if he is wrong. In the same token if what the democrats and the Obama administration are proposing does not work he will not be elected again. What few of these politicians see is that the Taliban is all over the globe. Not just in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Are they willing to declare war on the entire planet to go after the Taliban? If not then Afghanistan is just a waste of time.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  49. K

    Politicians create wars and designate military commanders to do the "planning" while our troops pay the price in blood/sweat/tears/ separtion from family/being deprived of participating in their children's births and upbringing. Corporate America must be padding our politicians' pockets to start and/or keep wars ongoing so they can make money. Greed rules. Our troops as brave and patriotic as they truly are lose. I support our trooops!!!!!!!!!!!

    December 4, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  50. Denny from Tacoma, WA

    It would be political suicide for our politicians to become anti-military in time of conflict. Besides there are all of those lucrative defense contracts with lobbyist benefits, etc.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  51. Kim Smith, Dodge City, Kansas

    Because every single Congressman has their finger in the military-industrial pie and those kick-backs, bribes, secret perks and cushy lifestyles from lobbyists sure goes a long way towards easing a guilty conscience.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  52. The Broker.

    One half are dreamers, and the rest are waiting to see him fall flat on his face. Barack Obama has nothing to do with what is happening in Afghanistan or anywhere else. He is just the "Civilian/Public connection. He does what he is told. Just like you and CNN.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
  53. Bizz, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    It seems that our gov't can find it easier to agree on sending people to be killed or wounded in wars then to tried to find ways to give people jobs and Health Care. Maybe it is be cause people like Carl Rowe who never had to watch someone die in a foxhole next to him and Dick Cheney who had more deferments from entering the service during the Vietnam war then Elizabeth Taylor has ex husbands, experienced flashbacks of what war is really about. I guess it is easy for them to say let's go get 'em or vote down healthcare when you have the best money can buy. Bring back the draft with no deferments, especially for family members of Congress and see how easy they vote to support war. You do not run into a lot of bluebloods on the battlefields.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
  54. Ann from Hampton, New Jersey

    As we are looked at as a "hawk" nation, of course the powers that be are going to back the President so that we are not looked at as whimps to the rest of the world. As for the American people, we are tired ot this war and want our men and women back home where they belong.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  55. ed in ri

    Curious how the right-side perpetual" war on terror " types are happy about Obamas decision. One reason has to be the stock investments in the defense industry. Another might be the influence of the Rothchild family, and the Israeli lobby, that basically makes the decisions for us. When it comes to never ending war; everyone in DC is always in cahoots.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
  56. Albert K., from Los Angeles

    Jack, bipartisanship occurs only when everyone is taxed and the result will protect the wealth and property of the rich. The military, police and fire protection, courts and jails are loved by the rich Republican leadership, but they don't need education and health care public options because they send thier kids to the best acadimies and doctors money can buy. The real question is, "why does the middle class Republican Base support the Party for the rich? .

    December 4, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
  57. Randy from Salt Lake City

    Easy one, Jack. Both parties are bribed equaliy by the military-industrial-security complex to keep the wars going forevery. Plus, most of the Congress and Senate are stockholders in those corporations that profit from war. This country is totally doomed.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  58. Jeff in E. Lyme, CT

    This one's too easy Jack, the Left wants to protect our Nation and the corrupt Right wants more free money out of defense dollars for the billionaires who put them in office.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  59. john ..... marlton, nj

    Sadly, the framework of political correctness that governs our "war" efforts is not based on the merits or why we are at "war' but on the troops and their safety. .Some day we will have a true leader that makes decisions based on the best interest of the USA and brings home our troops, demanding all others get off the the military money train.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  60. Ron from SF

    We have 10.5% unemployment, massive deficits and an infrastructure in trouble and these clowns want to flush trillions more down the Pentagon Rat hole? It appears to me that each side is trying to wrap themselves in the flag and in my eyes, appear as bigger warmongers than the other. I'm sick of it. When did willingness to go on foreign adventures become more important than taking care of our own? I worked for Democrats and gave them money to get a majority for this? Had I known they were just going to extend Bush's policies, I'd have stayed home and kept my hard earned money.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
  61. Dennis North Carolina

    politics and war are the same.

    December 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  62. Harry Havens

    He gave everyone a little of what they wanted. Between a "surge" and a timetable for withdrawal was sprinkled admonishments to the Afghanistan leaders that the free ride was over and the near future was soon to be their responsibility.

    Harry
    Millersburg, Ky

    December 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
  63. chaney, La.

    This is the only subject that Republicans can agree with Obama on because to disagree would appear unpatriotic, and of coarse you know Jack that Republicans flag is much bigger, brighter and Holier, than our Democratic flag......

    December 4, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  64. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Jack thats easy because most of congress consist of old war dogs still mad about not storming in on Russia when George Patton was leading the charge.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  65. Wilhelm von Nord Bach

    because IF a politician doesn't "wrap themself in the flag" and vote for something to do with the military, they are attacked by the right wing media and called "unpatriotic". most in "swing districts" can't stand the heat.

    that's why we have multibillion dollar aircraft carriers, billion dollar "invisable" airplanes and "star wars" missle systems that don't work instead of universal healthcare and government paid education thru college like the rest of the industrialized world.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  66. Meg from Troy, Ohio

    Jack–
    It says to me that we humans always seem to rally around war–the ultimate paean to violence and killling. I worry anytime Rove and Gingrich like something that a Democratic president does–something is fishy here. I hate our two wars in the Middle East–I'd have been a lot happier if Obama had said that we were pulling out of both countries–NOW.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  67. George, Montrose,PA

    Jack, I am a decorated Marine of the Vietnam era. I was 17 and stupid as in hindsight it was pretty much a worthless, stupid war. I would like to say this gently, but I can't: BRING BACK THE DRAFT!!! Too little are handling the burden and it is obvious in the divorce rate, suicide rate, and PTSD rate. When the sons and daughters of our trusted leaders have to go and fight another stupid war that steals billions from the needs of our own people, just maybe it would end.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  68. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    Partisanship is the result of a one sided ideology inherently based on greed, absolutism, and thirst for power, resulting in our immorality.

    War is the collective symmetry of this.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  69. Darren

    Our elected representatives use partisanship as a dividing issue on all matters concerned with profits of their corporate sponsors but opposing the military would only make them look that much more unpatriotic.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  70. Jackie in Dallas

    Because it would be political suicide for most members of Congress if they did anything else, Jack. You know that already!

    December 4, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  71. Ray in Nashville

    Jack, didn't you learn anything from the Bush years? Republicans will only work on a bipartisan basis when they are getting what they want.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  72. patricia

    Sadly, it's not really bipartisanship–it's that Obama happens to fall on the Republican side of the issue because he is escalating the war. They understand the "kill more bad guys" approach to problems. That's also why they're struggling with the "know when to call it quits" strategy, which is more nuanced and, therefore, too complex for the average Republican.

    Boise

    December 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  73. Kyle Irvine, CA

    Because our troops are being sent into harms way Jack. There is a lot of division in American politics. But whether your a conservative, Republican, a liberal Democrat or a confused Independant, we all want to see the U.S win the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  74. Laura

    Because military members are trained to do what they're told. They're not in it for agendas or manipulations unlike the criminals who come up with these bonehead policies that put these peoples lives at risk.

    In Washington they're guided by guilt not by any moral or common sense. The very least they can do is be unanimous in their support for these people.

    San Angelo, TX

    December 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  75. Lia, Bradenton, FL

    That's easy, Jack – the Dems are honestly looking out for the welfare of the soldiers and their families, while the GOP is smiling all the way to the bank with the lobbying dollars they get from all those "independent contractors" – like Dicky Cheney's Halliburton.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  76. Ray Kinserlow

    Because they are all our children.

    Ray Kinserlow
    Lubbock, Texas

    December 4, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  77. Layne Alleman

    Jack, Simple, A.- It's so wonderfully patriotic to sing the praises of war and the people who fight them (as long as it isn't you or someone you know). B.- Everyone in power (politicians, super-rich, ect. ), make MONEY from war (the vast military-industrial complex, remember?). I guess my brain is turning to mush at my age, but I still didn't pick up on any CLEAR strategy for going ahead in this war, just a lot of the same old, same old during the recent speech. Layne A. Antioch, Il.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm |
  78. Greg - Minneapolis

    Jack, the answer to this one is all too obvious. Congress knows that regardless of what people think about putting the troops in danger, the people still support the troops and want them to be as safe as possible until they can come home. Most, if not all members of Congress are motivated not by patriotism, but by the all-powerful "What do I need to do to get reelected?" And since it is Obama who is calling the shots now, they do not want to appear to be racist for opposing the first black President on a major policy issue. Never mind that when it was George W. Bush, the same actions were deemed unacceptable, to say the least and use words that can be said on TV!

    December 4, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  79. katiec Pekin, IL

    I have never seen our political process as disgusting as it is today.
    The republicans absolutely refuse to support anything, regardless of its merits. I have never seen a political party whose primary goal is to destroy our president, regardless of the consequences or what it
    can do to our country.
    I have never before witnessed the sewer tactics, lies, distortions and inciting of hate, anger, fear mongering and division of our country.
    Ask your republicans about their being the party of no, and, well
    on the path of becoming our countries most dangerous domestic
    terrorists.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  80. CurtJ

    Because they are bipartisan in the Conflict of Interest and Collusion they have going between each other and their Corporate benefactors who have bought them off. Corruption in the form of Colonialism that has them accepting monies to pass laws, regulations and deregulations to financially and legally help their Corporate Pimps as well as themselves. Corruption to enable the Neo Cons including your masters to yank the puppet strings of our government.

    December 4, 2009 at 5:57 pm |
  81. Michael and Diane Phoenix AZ

    Think "military/industrial complex" and the lobbying money going to congressmen/women! War is BIG money these days.....ie Halliburton and Blackwater!

    December 4, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  82. Randy T

    Easy. The military industrial complex orchestrated from israel, connecticut, and new york.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
  83. steve in virginia

    Because if the Taliban re-take control of Afghanastan and provide safe haven to Al Queida, they won't be able to blame it on Bush. And they know what the future of Democrats will be like if we get attacked again.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
  84. Jason, Koloa Kauai

    Military/industrial complex. Why is there still war? Military/industrial complex. Why does every foreign policy decision involve the military? Military/industrial complex. Why is healthcare and our crumbling infra-structure being ignored? Militaryindustrial complex. The military/industrial complex is at the root of many of our solvable problems. As long as politicians are profiting off of war, then there will be a thriving bi-partisan support for the Militrary/industrial complex.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  85. Simon - New York

    The only reason why bipartisanship exist when the military is involved is because of politicians are afraid of going against the war and being perceived as weak or even unamerican. Its no surprise too, most politicians are cowards

    December 4, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  86. EyeAm

    Because both the Democrats and the Republicans are for *force*, Jack. Force is something they can both get behind.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  87. Sue From Idaho

    they are all a bunch of war mongers?

    December 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  88. jim Blevins

    Same reason that football is popular - most Americans love violence.

    Jim, Craig, CO

    December 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  89. Jackie

    Jack...Jack!

    Follow the money, Dude...

    Jackie
    GA

    December 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  90. Don, Las Vegas, Nevada

    Having a choice between being democrat and republican is like being given a choice between McDonalds or Burger King.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  91. Scott Stodden

    Because Jack haven't you figured it out yet that Republicans are war mongers who care about nothing but wars, raising taxes on the middle class and the poor and to put fear in our heads about everything that the best President since Bill Clinton stands for. That is wrong!

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    December 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  92. Tom in Iowa

    No one wants to be on record as not supporting the military, no matter what it is. 2010 is an election year and even the party of NO cannot afford television ads running saying they said NO to aiding anything military.

    Tom in Iowa

    December 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  93. Ken Shade

    You want people at your party? Tell them there will be free food. You want bipartisanship in Congress? Tell Republicans there will be a good war served for lunch.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  94. El Mugroso

    Because the military is the biggest hole through which public funds are ripped of from the people, and politicians are so much for that.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  95. Anvar

    I think that both parties share responsibilities for military decisions. Otherwise, it can be used as a political card for the next election.
    It is an important decision without the party affiliation

    Houston, TX

    December 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  96. Alexandria

    The answer is obvious: It is because Americans are gun-toting, intellectually inferior, war-mongers!

    December 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  97. Jerry - Fountain CO

    Why Jack it's about $$$!!!
    Check out all those congress members (not to mention The Newt) who "agree" & I'm sure you'll find that they are receiving campaign donations from defense contractors, lobby for defense contractors, are "consultants" for defense contractors, or sit on the Boards of defense contractors.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  98. Robert Yates

    Jack:

    Excuse me, but the Only time there is Bipartisanship is when the Democrats agree with a Republican issue. Conversely, Republicans Never agree with a Democrat initiative. It's not because it is about war other than the fact that Republicans always support the Military. And the Democrats are afraid that voting against the war will be perceived as not supporting our troops. Find me bipartisanship from the Republicans on ANY social issue.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  99. Paul

    Jack,
    It's asking a lot to expect a man to give his life for his country. There's no reason why the hell anyone should do it without exceptional circumstances. But that's exactly what Obama is asking of these 30,000 troops. The least he can do is apply the same rules to himself. If he defies the military industrial complex there is a possibility that he could pay with his life. But the fate of these troops is not a statistical probability; it is an unequivocal certainty. A percentage of them will die. The bean counters can already tell you how many. Obama did not promise to get out of Afghanistan but he did make a hell of a lot of other promises and he hasn't kept any of them either. No-one would mind if he broke this one.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  100. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Jack these politicians are not for this war. They are for votes. In the states that they represent they build tanks and aircraft and helmets and rockets and ammunition. Unfortunately soldiers from those states also die. On the up side to that they also have cemeteries in their districts and death is good business for them. You see Jack a war is a good thing for politicians. they don't have to fight they only have to fund the fight. Meanwhile they rake in the case for the next election because they gave the nod.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  101. Robert Atkinson

    Because rational people understand that national defense is THE first responsibility of any federal government. Domestic issues are for political games; national defense really serious and shouldn't be part of the political games.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  102. Donovan

    Because both parties know that one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government is national security, everything else is vote-grabbing garbage, and one side or the other always knows it.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  103. Ryan

    The reason there is bipartisanship over the military is because the government does not want another Vietnam fiasco. The military is made up of people who wanted do to what the greater American population did not want to do. We should support them not bring them down.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  104. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Jack,

    any answer of your own...would like to know what you think beside the typical answer of being stuck in some military-industrial complex as suggested from others.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  105. Pete - Augusta Ga

    Jack –

    Answer is simple – Votes & Money!! Both parties have painfully learned that to not support the military is a formula for electoral wrath – (weak on defense, not supporting the troops, etc). Additionally, hardly a Congressional district doesn't have milirary dollars flowing in (military suppliers, bases, hospitals, etc) and donations in return for election warchests.

    Follow the money!

    December 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  106. Beau - Napa, Ca.

    Simple Jack, Providing for a Common Defense is a Constitutional Requirement. Commonly recognized by all sides. Providing for the Common Health Care or Dictating Common Morals are NOT !!!

    December 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  107. McPherson; Spanish Fort, AL.

    There will always be "Bipartisanship" when it is time to make money!!!!

    December 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  108. Leandro D Quintana

    Our young men and women in the military are generally regarded by most Americans as people who have put their money where their mouths are. They have credibility and we are inclined to support them. We also do not want to see a repeat of the Vietnam experience where we often demonized the men and women sent to war. They and their families are making sacrifices in our behalf thus we ought them a high degree of loyalty.

    Leandro D Quintana, Reno, Nevada

    December 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  109. Gray

    Fear against a shared danger-real or imagined-is what brings people together. And that's why our Congress only works together when it comes to war. Think how neighbors who never say a word to each other, work together when there is a natural disaster. It's like that.
    The reason why that same sentiment doesn't exist with the economic crisis is that some or our representatives and fellow citizens for that matter are not affected by it at all, or very little.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  110. Birddog in Mississippi

    What is most interesting in this poll is the response of the Independents. People always think it is the left-wing of the democratic party that is opposed to war - but more Independents oppose the escalation of troops than Democrats. They are clearly not the 'middle' of the country as many people often say. It's hard really to know what they think about anything & really it might be best to not think of them as one 'group'.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  111. William from Kansas City

    The main reason why their is such a concise consensus on military issues is because when it comes to national security all Americans feel they must come together in support. Americans feel proud when they support their country, and they feel that when they support the war effort they will be supporting a stronger and safer America.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  112. Chuck Wright, Georgia

    People vote for war because of fear. Fear is not a policy. If you spend all day thinking of ways you can get attacked, you will find many to gurard against. It has become the teflon answer and the way to get the pork wagons moving. The Military/Industrial Complex runs the country for the 'have mores'. No one has guts enough to tell the war mongers to go home. Too bad we can't maintian the same focus on the basic needs of man.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  113. Prince, Fort McMurray, Alberta

    Jack,
    they are our son’s and daughter’s and any disagreement is not worth the blood.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  114. Gina Arcuri

    Jack,
    I love your wit!! They only get together for the military. Which is not a bad thing.
    However why do the Republicans think that our military is the best in the world, even though our government runs it. But they don't believe the government can help out in health care, and run that correctly.
    They only believe government works when they want to believe it

    December 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  115. John

    I would consider the current economic crisis as a startling display of bipartisanship. Whilst the political right and left hold very different solutions, many can agree on the need for substantial efforts put forth for change. A key example of this is current legislation HR 1207 and S 604 to Audit the Federal Reserve. Americans are universally tied to the pursuit for real transparency in our government's role in the economy.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  116. E Rodriguez

    As an ex-military man, I think it's a simple reason there is bi-partisanship with military related issues. Without the military, there is no political party. In essence, they are saving there own jobs.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  117. Dan Rios

    We are a war-mongering country so this is no surprise. Money
    Jack!! That's what WAR is all about - MONEY - Pentagon Contracts!!

    December 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  118. Michael H. in Albuquerque, NM

    The Military Industrial Complex is the only manufacturing business the freemarketers haven't yet outsourced to Communist China. Without it the economy would collapse.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  119. Joel, New York

    It seems that so long as our military and hawkish political leaders are able to put boots on the ground, there is a moral sentiment to maintain their safety regardless of the nature of the war.
    That puts politicians on the opposing side of the fence in a tricky situation. Saying "no," sounds like your against their safety and support and no one wants that. So the soldiers must remain, a trick to look like bipartisanship where in actuality, its underhanded politics.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  120. Jay in Canada

    It might mean that the US is the "war-mongering" country that many of your critics in the world accuse you of being.

    Obviously, the middle east is less "peaceful" than when George W. took office.

    Perhaps, you might think about addressing the "cause" rather than the "symptom" of the problems.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  121. Karl from SF, CA

    It’s the only time the major contributors to the Republicans, namely the military-industrial complex, have a chance to fill their coffer even more with no-bid contracts. The Republicans are only interested in corporate America and have no regard for the bulk of the American people. I guess the salaries we pay them to represent us don’t hold a candle to the corporate PAC re-election donations, elaborate trips and golf retreats they rake in. And don't forget the cash in the freezer. That's bipartisan too, isn't it?

    December 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  122. Chris

    Jack,
    Why bipartisanship for war? Simple, Republicans make money off war profiteering, Democrats get to look strong. A Quid Pro A Quo across the aisle.

    Chris
    Benson, AZ

    December 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  123. Gary Smedile

    Jack, nice column even if it includes the backhanded kudos to the R's. One problem: it's revisionist history. Back when Iraq was THE war, the Dem's did NOT support Bush nor did they unanimously or overwhelmingly support the military. Harry Reid declared defeat, "Johns" Murtha, Kerry and Dean accused our troops of atrocities and the Democrat house organ (the NY Times) ranted mercilessly. The opposition became so intense that it forced Joe Lieberman out of the party. Yes, they ended up voting to fund but only after pounding out a constant drum beat of dissent and defeat. Bipartisanship indeed.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  124. EBJ

    Jack,

    ever since Obama took office in January the GOP has decided to be against practically everything he has tried to do, yet they can't come out and be against ANY type of military action because that would make them look worse in the eyes of the public than they already do. The GOP backed President Bush in EVERY military action he requested. That being said if the plans of President Obama are not sucessful be prepared for the GOP to flee from it like a scared rabbit. I think both parties have to agree to back the armed forces.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  125. Larry

    What does blood lust say about humans when it drives entire populations of the world?

    December 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  126. Ed Fertik

    Because Democrats, independents, Republicans and Conservatives all feel and understand the need for national security even though Liberals usually don't thus the high level of compromise. On the domestic front, the nation is split between capitalism which has served us so well for so long and socialism, a culture of government dependency half the country hates. That's why we are at a point in American history similar to the charged atmosphere just prior to the Revolution and the Civil War.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  127. frank

    I'd bet most people on this post never were in or around the military. Same with Congress.

    Too bad there isn't enough oversight. There is a LOT of waste in the military. Not enough projects are cut. Some stuff keeps on going. Osprey for one.

    And I used to be a defense contractor and BOTH my parents retired from DoD. One is buried in Arlington.

    Part of it is the whole jingoism that started with Reagan. Used to be the military was NOT political. That really ramped up under Bush. Unfortunately. And its changed the service for the worse. Politlcs was NEVER discussed in the military at one time. Now it is. And that is so disgusting, I can't buy into a lot of the rah rah rah that is going on now.

    And that is sad.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  128. Corey Burkes

    The answer is simple. The left and right have a 'git yer gun' mentality when it comes to proper closure to 9/11 because it happened to ALL OF US ... we seen it on TV, internet and everywhere and it was a shock and slap in the face of our American arrogance. Health care, unfortunately isn't a devastating news report. You don't see people dying in hospitals as we seen planes crashing into buildings so until a 9/11-level Health care crisis occurs in our face and in every form of media for all of us to experience, group effort focus will not happen. Remember, it's all about out of sight out of mind.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  129. Jo-Ann Wright, Georgia

    The threat of war is the best scam in town. The proof that they were right to build more Armaments is that "nothing happened"! sweet

    December 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  130. Jonathan

    The support in this case is not so much for the administration, but for the troops on the ground. These are the sons and daughters of this nation and anything less than a supportive position could be political suicide. The men and women on the grouind are the ones who will face the dangers of any surge and they are the ones who need to know that this nation supports them.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  131. tony /fl

    because they want this to go on until 2012,so they can scare us again,about the democrats not being good in fighting wars.they know what their doing,i just hope this war can end soon.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  132. tj Tampa

    This isn't Bi-Partisanship Jack. Democrats are just happy this thing is winding down and we are getting out, so if that means get in, to get out so be it. Republicans love any war, any place, any time, as long as they or their kids don't have yo fight it. And, Independants are only closet Republican, who don't have the courage to admit they are Republicans. Watch the dip in the polls when it's time to leave, Republican support BIG ZERO.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  133. DAVID JULIEN

    because the rich have more to lose then the every day person if we have another 9/11

    December 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  134. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Our military consist of brave men and women who know their job is to serve and protect our country at any costs unlike the house of thieves in Washington who serve and protect their own interest. It's ashame it takes our military at war to remind people that they serve the greatest cause and what standing united really means.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  135. teresa guess

    Well, Jack,

    Bipartison agreement about military spending makes sense when you stop to consider that most of our Congressional leaders are, directly or indirectly, on the payrolls of the corporations and industries that generate business and profit through the "military industrial complex."

    December 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  136. Bill Adams

    It's not really bipartisanship. The Republicans are always supporters of a military solution. Obama has simply joined them on this one and brings along many of his Democratic supporters. Apparently Obama believes, like many Presidents before him, that the American people will never forgive a leader who "cuts and runs". How else can one explain someone so smart being convinced that there is a military answer in Afghanistan.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  137. Phasor

    Because military spending is the source of wealth for the American economy. America's largest exports are weapons and military related systems.

    War is good for America.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  138. Steve

    Jack,

    GOP is out to make money, Republicans make money on war and from insurance companies. More Republicans are associated with lobbies that have interest in sustaining a war. Less Democrats are involved in war lobbies, but they have their ear marks and pig outs too, just on the peaceful side of the equation.

    Steve
    Miramar, FL

    December 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  139. paul bauer

    That's where the money is. I'll bet if you could check the stocks of all politicians...you'd find they're all profiting from war. I'll bet Cheney has made tens of millions from his Haliburton stocks. These guys don't want the gravy train to stop.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  140. paula rissman des moines, iowa

    Mr cafferty,
    Do you suppose the reason for both Demos and Republicans to approve Presidents decision on Afganstan and other Military policies is because this is what the Constitition proclaims. There is no mention of cash for clunkers or bailing out banks or even Medicare.The Commander in Chief is to protect the nation and we should always agree.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  141. jeremy james

    i think this is an easy question. it's basic human behavior. i'll use al gore's frog in the boiling water example.immedeiate terror or war threats scare people into wanting to take action right away. but other situations that do not seem as immediate. people feel like it will be handled at a later date.senators and congressman who have healthcare don't feel the urgency to inact it because "they have it." people without health care are urgent but there are more people who have it and they are scared of the unknown more than the reality.even though the reality of the staus quo is disasterous.so when it comes to miliatry the scare tactics of an imediate threat we feel the need to act "now" not later.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  142. Brian Midway City, Ca.

    Jack,
    In my opinion the politicians show support to the troops so that can remain in office. Those that don't put themselves at risk for when need to run for office again. Lets face it War is BIG MONEY and just about the only manufacturing jobs left in this country. If we have no wars the economy will continue to decline and the jobless rate will most likely increase. It seems to me that War (military power) is the only thing we sell these days.
    I have a question for you. Is the U.S. military turning into a mercenary force? It seems to me that if a nation has a problem call the U.S. and we will go over there and fight thier war for them.
    Brian

    December 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  143. Bruce - Delaware

    Because the 'representative' get their marching orders from the corporations that make $$$ from war. Both parties are the same, under the same global elite.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  144. chris in north bay ontario canada

    jack; it's the same old crap.....nothing like a good war to keep the money going around. right or wrong you tell me

    December 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  145. Doug in Miami

    Why the bipartisanship? It's the old "fighting the enemy who wants to destroy us" tactic. The difference is, for the Republicans, it's any war (see Iraq) and for the Democrats, it's finally dedicating the necessary resources and going after those who were behind the attacks of 9/11. Attacking Iraqis – unjust, unnecessary. Attacking al Qaeda – just, necessary and long overdue.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  146. Ralph Spyer chicago Il

    President Johnson went in to Vietnam because he did not want the Republicans to say he is soft on communism, The greatest weakness of all is the fear of appearing weak.There is money in war,There is money in the fear of war. How much have the terrorist spent ? How much have we spent? Why have we won yet ? Are the weapons the C.I.A. gave the terrorist to fight the Russians killing Americans now?

    December 4, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  147. S. Richardson

    When Americans think of military issues they think of safety and security in their homes. American people want to support their military in all issues and aspects no matter what is being discussed because we believe support from those outside the military contributes a form of intangible strength. Political parties' reactions to Obama's war efforts are just a reflection of an overall American sentiment.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  148. perry hollimon

    jack, it's because president eisenhower was right! the military industrial complex is alive and thriving.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  149. vern-anaheim,ca

    jack,the military is very popular in this country and republicans don't want to be seen as anti military

    December 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  150. skay

    This is a lay-up of a question. Aside from the 70,000 troops and their families, the war makes absolutely no demands on the American public. NONE. Sure, the cost to deploy 30,000 additional troops for three years will approach $100,000,000,000, but really, what does this mean? More debt? So what, let the Asian's pick up the tab. Of course, our kids will have to pay the interest on this debt, but who really cares about them anyway?

    December 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  151. RLB

    Basically, conservatives have always favored war. It's big business, and it lines the pockets of their friends. (Does the name Dick Cheney ring a bell here?) So as much as they hate to support any policy initiated by a Democrat, even they can't resist when it comes to a profitable venture like war!

    December 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  152. robert

    Bi-partizanship? you cant be serious ! The chicken hawks and other pro war types think you should bomb them all and let God sort them out. The republicans just want to bring home the bacon for their military industrial complex friends.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  153. Q.A.W.

    Not only is it human nature, but it's fuel for nationalism. Nations are never stronger as a whole than they are when fighting a war the majority of a nation supports, and people need something to fight for. And as American's, we like to feel that we can all come together for a just cause, while arguing amongst each other. It's been an awful long time since there's been a unanimously agreeable cause for our country to fight for. It's about time we can come together on at least one thing.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  154. Carl in San Diego

    Simple Jack, just ask any other nations' people – the U.S. is a war mongering nation. The Republicans LOVE war, the Democrats just go the way that suits them politically. Am I the only one who has noticed that the Republican's have only sided with President Obama on this escalation of the war?

    December 4, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  155. Johnson

    Because basically it would look bad an un-American if both parties did not support our armed forces. But you can bet that there were some members of the GOP really ticked off that they FINALLY had to agree and support something that President Obama suggested. That still didn't stop some right wing talk show hosts from finding a few holes in his speech that they could gripe about. Must keep the masses happy you know.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  156. Ed Varchal

    Jack – Why such an easy question???

    Answer:
    1. The majority still understand we are at 'war' [not man made disasters].
    2. Extreme people not in uniform do extremely bad things.
    3. The safety of the country is both important and at currently at risk.
    4. Some issues really are above partisanship.

    Ed in Melbourne, Fl

    December 4, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
  157. Tom Gorey

    Jack, It’s all about sustaining their power. The reason we have bipartisanship during military operations is because both the democrats and republicans have a vested investment in the military industrial complex. It’s time to stop these special interest groups from running a puppet government from behind the curtains. Maybe if we had stopped the greed years ago we wouldn’t be in the mess that we’re in today.

    -Tom from Columbus

    December 4, 2009 at 6:33 pm |
  158. Dee from NC

    Because what President Eisenhower warned us 60 years ago– to beware of the taking over of our democracy by the military-industrial complex (his words & he knew what he was talking about) has well and truly happened.

    There is bi-partison support because as a nation have become very deeply committed to wars of every kind and a misplaced belief that military might means we are right about everything. It will ruin us. It already has in many way.

    Americans are so surprised to be viewed as a militaristic bordering on imperialistic nation by the rest of the world. We don't see ourselves that way. We delusionally think everyone wants us to have bases on their soverign territory. No other nation in the world has military bases circling the globe. No one in the U.S. would tolerate for a minute a foreign power, even a friendly one like England, having a military base on our shores. But we EXPECT them to love having us there. They don't and we cannot afford it any longer. Every imperial power in history has been undone by committing their resources to their military and not the need of their people. We'll be next, soon or later.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  159. steve in virginia

    What military/industrial complex? The military and our intelligence agencies were decimated by Clinton to balance his budget. And our industrial complex has been outsourced, mostly to China, Mexico, Japan, and India. What's left of either is nothing but a bad joke.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
  160. Dele

    Jack!
    When its military matter,
    2+2
    Republican answer = 4
    Democrat answer=4

    When it domestic matter,
    Democrat answer=4

    Republican don always have answer
    I am not supprise
    Are you?

    December 4, 2009 at 6:38 pm |
  161. Rodrigo Steele

    Is it possible that the so-called dissatisfaction of the american people is media drivien? They seems to have a vested interest in promoting this story line. I can't believe that the public would put the lives of our militery personnel at risk, just to satisfy their desire to know all the details of the Prsident's strategy for Afganistan. More than what was necessary was made public on Tuesday, giving the enemy the upper hand. They now know when we are comeing, how many troops, and for how long. Only in America this kind of information is made public.
    What about the element of surprise that is vital to the success of any military campagne?

    December 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  162. Faye in Tx.

    You say Dems were mostly afraid to buck Bush on the wars. You are right. One of those who did oppose Bush's hawkishness, however, was a young Senator Obama.I do not think that senator would have supported Pres. Obama's Afghan surge.Just a thought-not really related to your question.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  163. Rick McDaniel / Lewisville, TX

    Because it would be politically incorrect to oppose the military, in time of war.

    Of course, come peace time, if that ever again occurs, there will be plenty of partisan calls for defense cuts.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  164. Donald in CA

    Going to war is the only thing the war loving conservatives will ever agree on with the democrats. They loved the war in Iraq, but how many lost sons and daughters there. They love defense spending and never met a needless fighter plane they didnt like.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  165. Sonic Sam

    Same old story of War blame others blame yourself. The true sadness is Americans will die. This gives me great pain in my heart.
    This should stop...I don't do not want to see a shot up man come home muchless dead! Stop it.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
  166. Tar de Moutonnoir

    I have to disagree with you on this one jack, you can always count on bi-partisanship when it comes support for Israel regardless of what that entails for its own interests.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:52 pm |
  167. ken

    the bipartisan support for this issue is really just an agreement that we need to support ways to maintain our way of life,our freedoms,and our capitalistic dreams. if terrorism is a currant threat and a future threat everyone will agree that we to continue to invest in this. otherwise they will eventually affect our way of life aGAIN.

    December 4, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
  168. Terry from Illinois

    Americas Congress is a total embarrassment since all they do is filibuster or fight against each side instead of working together to help working Americans. For the past 10 years working Americans have watched their jobs being sent out of America, give tax breaks to companies who outsource and continue to allow Wall St. and Companies to dictate policy for Americans instead of Americans dictating policy in America, remember the "Government For The People, By The People" that our founding fathers set up more than 200 years ago, today its more like "Government For The Companies, For The Illegals, By The Rich". King George would be proud...
    That's how divided and slanted our government has been for working Americans...

    December 4, 2009 at 6:59 pm |