Was everyone so excited, back in November, when the Democrats ended up being the majority and won the House? I saw a quote on Yahoo News in which he basically said, "i'm the decision maker on Iraq." I know for many it was seen as a good thing when the Democrats came out on top, but in reality, isn't Bush telling the truth? That he is indeed the decision maker on Iraq, so no matter how much everyone protests and objects, in the end, he makes the decisions. And not just on Iraq policies, on everything involving the US. What exactly can the others do to stop him? I'm not really very knowledgeable when it comes to politics, nor do I get involved in all the controversy. I'm just wondering how it will all play out, and after all is said and done, does it really matter who opposes him....what can anyone do?
2007-01-26 04:33:07 · 15 answers · asked by D-Lovely 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Congress holds the purse strings. Of course, Bush is anxious to get those troops in place over there before they can exercise their ability to withdraw the money to send them. He knows once they are there that Congress can't withdraw the funding from them and wouldn't. They can vote to withdraw the funding of the reconstruction funds going to Iraq. Since no reconstruction has taken place, and the chaos over there doesn't lend it self to successful reconstruction Congress can easily pull those funds and is already talking about doing so. This could put some real teeth in the demands that we are placing on the Iraqis to get their act together. Bush makes demands with no teeth in them, which is why Maliki repeatedly thumbs his nose at the President.
Congress can also rescind past votes that gave the President so much power and may have to do so in order to stop him. Their most important role in foreign affairs right now IMO is for them to stop him from attacking Iran. This they can do. They are already stating that the power they gave to the President only applied to Iraq and wasn't given for the right to attack any nation he pleases. He'll get a fight over that one, and one he richly deserves. They acknowledge of course that Iran is a huge problem. They just don't think, thankfully, that the answer is to begin a series of air strikes out of hand. Things are getting sticky, to say the least, for the President. His own party is turning against him, more every day are coming out against his policies. John Warner was a real kick in the pants to Bush, and he'll bring a lot of Republicans with him when it comes to signing that resolution and giving notice to the President that the majority of both Houses are against him.
2007-01-26 04:57:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Congress can only do so much. the problem is Bush is painting himself into a corner. If he wants full responsibility, he is going to get it if things don't go well. It's a double-edged sword. he can say he is the decision maker, but if he ignores others and the situation doesn't improve, the results are his to bear.
2007-01-26 04:41:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
The Constitution clearly states he is the Commander In Chief, and in time of war he has certain powers. However, Congress does have some power as well (i.e. cut the funding of the War). It's all clearly layed out in the Constitution, although the way Democrats act, you would think they're President.
2007-01-26 04:49:18 · answer #3 · answered by Brian M 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because, if he's accountable for Iraq, then he has to make the decisions. Why would anybody let Congress make decisions on this? They won't claim any responsibility or accountability for it, just like the nitwit protesters won't take any responsibility or accountability.
Because the buck stops at his desk, he's taking full charge of it. As it should be.
2007-01-26 04:43:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
As far as our troops go he has total control of where they are sent and what their mission. Congress has control of the check book and decides whether or not to fund the war. Congress can not order withdrawal of troops even with a majority vote in favor of one.
2007-01-26 04:41:38 · answer #5 · answered by joevette 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
TRADITIONALLY THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA IS WITHIN THE PERVIEW OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT. IF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS SO CHOSE, THEY COULD CUT OFF THE FUNDING FOR THE WAR JUST AS THEY DID IN VIETNAM. THEY NOW DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT STEP BECAUSE ANY DISASTER AFTER THAT WOULD BE BLAMED ON THE DEMOCRATS AND IMPERIL THEIR LOCK ON THE 08 ELECTIONS. PRETTY SIMPLE REALLY.
2007-01-26 04:50:29 · answer #6 · answered by Rich S 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It appears to be that way. The Iraqi Congress sent Bush a letter asking him to remove the troops and he has decided to send more instead of doing what a sovereign nation wants done in their country.
2007-01-26 04:40:04 · answer #7 · answered by Herr Raging Boehner. 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
This is already been figured out. The people voted for them blindly. They convinced the people that they would be able to get our troops out of Iraq, and they promised and increase in minimum wage. these were their two main priorities. First big failure-They didn't get the minimum wage increae passed.
Second big failure-They can't get our troops out of Iraq. I bet there are a lot of people out there feeling really stupid right now. I didn't vote because I already knew who was gonna win and I knew their promises were going to be empty handed. Now people are talking about Hillary as president? That's scary. if she wins, then I guess this country will just sit back and wait till we get attacked again.
2007-01-26 04:45:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
he isn't the final say on everything but he is as in being the Commander and Chief. The rules of governance are very clear and it is obviously a very important part to only have one person that has final say in overall military strategy. Look how long it took for them to draft up a statement to say he is wrong. 3 weeks. and all but 1 Dem as well as a couple reps were all in agreement. imagine if that was the case for every single military decision the country had to make. (oversimplified example) if a nuke was aimed at the US and we were being told it is about to launch. we couldn't send it to a committee to see what the best response would be. it has to be acted on. It is the main purpose of the national govt to protect the country and a mob rule in any military instance would spell much peril
2007-01-26 04:42:04 · answer #9 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
The democrats can get around his authority as commander in chief by refusing to fund it.
That would be wrong for them to do though.
2007-01-26 04:39:50 · answer #10 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋