My understanding is he can send them anyway.
2007-01-20 16:50:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by daljack -a girl 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That depends on how far Congress is willing to push it.
Given Bush's attitude, he's almost certain to ignore the proposed non-binding resolution (other than accusing everyone of anything nasty cheney tells him to).
But beyond that about the only options Congress has are to limit funding in various ways and/or to set a cap on the number of troops. And Congress is rightly going to be very reluctant to carry that tactic very far--because if Bush refused to yeild (likely) such a move could really hurt our men and women in uniform--and no one is under any illusion Bush will sacrifice their welfare and their lives for political gain--since that's what he's been doing all along.
Unless some other factors break to put pressure on Bush, we're probably going to be stuchk with watching Americans die so Bush can have his little war and Cheney/Haliburton can continue to rack up their profits for another two years.
But that's not saying other factors wont come into play. For example, there's a very good chance Bush's puppet regime in Iraq will collapse entirely. That would create a very difficult situation for Bush--his whole rationale for staying is to shore up that regime.
2007-01-20 15:45:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There only power is budgetary. They could defund the war, but in reality not in this fiscal year since the Republicans can & would filibuster any attempt to revoke funding & if they didn't, bush would certainly veto it. They can decline to allocate money in the next budget. That would create a major crisis. I hope it doesn't happen, but I'm afraid it will.
2007-01-20 14:45:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
the congress proposal the laws for US government
legally as commander in chief Bush can executed them in time of
war for not supporting the US ARMY to win
2007-01-20 14:17:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by kimht 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Congress has no ability to effect this. They can cut off funding if they want to, but they will not do that.
2007-01-20 14:18:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by The Scorpion 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It means nothing. They are just playing both sides of the fence. They can cut off funding for war but thats not smart.
2007-01-20 14:23:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by Zane S 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Does not matter what they say, it will be non binding. How many of those troops have already left? The majority!
2007-01-20 14:08:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush and cheney would feel utterly stupid.
2007-01-20 14:51:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by FILO 6
·
0⤊
1⤋