Should Congress stop Bush's plan to add over 20,000 troops in Iraq?

Question

That is, to not fund the extra troops.

Only 29% of people support the war, so cutting funding or even bringing the troops home would not be political suicide. The past elections showed that supporting the war is career suicide.

Answer 1

Yes.

What I think should have been done is allowing the military to run things - right from the beginning. Bush now wants to try and clean up his clusterfuck by sending more troops in. Let the people paid to play war do so. The military guys could have done this a lot better. Bet you that if the military was in charge from the start, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq at all.

Tropical: They can't stop him, but he will have to pay the expenses himself for doing it - Congress authorizes the money. . .

Answer 2

Bush wants to stop the war as quick as possible. He's not going in without a strategy. The flaw in his plan is that not all the terrorists are coming from Iraq. Iran is the biggest problem because the ruler, Ahmadinejad truly believes that it is his responsibility to end the world or at least America and Israel and all other predominately Christian or Jewish counties. People say that They hate Bush but fail to recognize that America Has not been attacked after 9-11 and much less people are dying Iraq then before. Most of the people are happy Saddam is gone (after all it was Iraqis that sentenced him to death) Bush isn't stupid if he was you might be dead now. The terrorist are hard to defeat because thy don't value their own lives and that are taught early in life to hate America (they have 5 year olds chanting "Death to America" on a daily basis) Mistakes have been made but If the strategy is good than sending extra troops could be of great benefit to the world.

Answer 3

Won't happen. Not politically expedient to do so and as others have mentioned, it would be political suicide (would make them look bad). And I'd bet a dollar to a donut that after the 08 elections that if this war is still going on, and a Democrat is elected President, that there won't be a pull out. War is economically beneficial to the country waging it....AS LONG AS THAT COUNTRY WINS. Too many people on both sides of the political spectrum making money to end it that way.


Not to mention the effect it would have on the troops. Cowardice is not the face of America kids.

Answer 4

The number is 21,500 and no Congress can not stop the troop movement. Defense is funded at $498 billion for 2007, that was set by the 109th. Congress. Congress can and should cut off the money for Iraq. That would require Republican support to get 60 votes. Democrats would only need 10 Republicans with courage.

Answer 5

No...Congress should jump on the bandwagon and tell Bush to send 80,000 of our all-volunteer troops to Iraq so that he can not only secure Baghdad, but the rest of the country. That will never happen though because you libs have a problem with war. Actions have always spoken louder than words. True peace has never been achieved anywhere through the use of a peace treaty. A true peace usually occurs after victory, then the peace treaty follows.

Answer 6

First of all Congress can't just stop his plan, they have limited options regarding what they have the capacity to do... please remember that our president is the Commander in Chief NOT the congress or the supreme court and that power is granted to the president in our constitution which as far as I know still is the supreme law of the land...
Second of all, I feel the additional troops are long over due and needed to stop there being an even higher death toll. The troops hands have been tied by all the political rangling in Washington and it has got to stop... we are at war, who cares if our enemy likes us?!?! We need to go in and get the job done once and for all and obviously we need more troops to do that. I appreciate and pray for each and every soldier who puts their lives on the line day in and day out for our freedoms, even the freedoms of narrow minded hypocrits who can do nothing but bad mouth our military and country. God bless them all...

Answer 7

Isn't that special. They can't. All they can do is complain.

The Democrats have been touting for months and months how our President doesn't care about the troops. They do. They are the only ones who care. Bring them home. Send more. They change their stance more often than they change their underwear.

How are the Democrats going to defend their stance on how they care about the troops if they cut off funding to the troops to give them a better chance for success.

They have been in power for what, 2 weeks? They are already setting up their own demise.

I pray they go down in flames. And I pray they take those who have aligned themselves with the Democrats with them.

Answer 8

They can't. All they can do is to deny new funding. However, the military already has a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, so they could just cut spending someplace else to pay for the new troops.

If congress cuts or denies any spending for the military, they will doom themselves to election defeat. Many people disagree with the war, but if the Democrats cut spending to our troops, there will be a huge outcry.

Answer 9

They should not deny funding for the troops, but they should make Bush come up with a plan for withdrawal before we sink any more money and lives into the war.

Answer 10

No. What if the 20,000 extra troops secure Iraq and essentially "win the war"?

Answer 11

Even with a 20,000 solider increase in Iraq, the total number of troops will still not be the highest its been in this war.