20,000 troops to Iraq?
2007-01-22 03:30:48 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, he is the commander in chief and does have the authority to send as many troops as he wishes, however Congress does hold the purse strings and can cut off funding which in reality would stop Bush from doing this. I think he has 90 days that he can send them without going to congress and asking for money.
2007-01-22 03:35:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
they are actually not powerless, they are able to compliment to vote to stop investment the conflict at every time. the reason they gained't do it is via the fact the help required would not exist and that they comprehend it. Even particular Democrats are threatening a filibuster is they attempt. Mark this Democrats, no longer Republicans are threatening to filibuster different Democrats. The Congress won't be able to and should no longer attempt to micromanage the conflict. They the two help the conflict attempt or they do no longer, yet they don't get to %. and choose. that's exciting to me how many human beings have a quick memory for the statements made. Many Democrats have proposed a troop surge, now that that's happening those self same human beings now oppose it. the effort-free actuality is the that Democrat management won't help something that are considered as helpful to Mr. Bush. in short greater politics as regular. do no longer for a 2d have confidence that those human beings have the terrific pursuits of the rustic or the troops in thoughts. What they are focused on is a failure for the administration and positioning for the 08 election . they're going to do something to make their objectives actuality, at the same time with sponsoring an American defeat and embarrassment.
2016-12-12 17:33:40 · answer #2 · answered by sherburne 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. However, they do have the power to pass or refuse to pass bills pertaining to financing the war. They have to be careful though. Even though the voters of this nation are obviously not supportive of escalation any votes cutting war funding will be construed by the administration as a vote against the troops. The public has fallen for this rhetoric before. Congress is well aware of this and will be hesitant to cut funding.
2007-01-22 03:39:17 · answer #3 · answered by toff 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
All they can do is cut off funding. And if Bush sends more troops before they have the chance to cut off funding... they're going to be there to stay, because Congress wouldn't cut funding for troops already on the ground.
2007-01-22 03:34:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Let's restate your question for discussion purposes. Does Congress have the power to turn their backs on innocent Iraqi's and let AlQada take over their country bringing disdain to the USA and emboldening terrorists?
Democrats want it but NO, they do not have that power.
2007-01-22 03:39:56 · answer #5 · answered by americanmalearlington 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
not without hurting the troops.. they would have to cut funding.. and though they don't want them to go.. there's no way they will cut funding to our troops.. and Bush knows that so he'll send them.
2007-01-22 03:36:24 · answer #6 · answered by pip 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nope, but they can show the American people that they are trying to do there will, and if Bush sends the troops anyways, it will further deteriorate his standing with the American public.
2007-01-22 03:38:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Constitutionally they do not...
They can defund the whole war... but congress does NOT have the constitutional right to set military strategy
2007-01-22 03:34:10 · answer #8 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, but they do have the power to cut the funds.
Gee - I wonder if he believes in this war enough to spend his own ill-gotten gains...
.
2007-01-22 03:36:31 · answer #9 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They haven't stopped him yet...
2007-01-22 03:33:50 · answer #10 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋