English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Democrats got slightly ignorant people to believe a Democrat controlled congress can change Iraq.

They got some people to forget that 20 million people have invaded this country and that Democrats want the invasion. Democrats started campaigning on the the Iraq issue after the Democrat's massive foreign worker rallies in May failed so badly.

Anyone that went to high school knows congress doesn't control wars. High school graduates know F.D.R. and Truman decided the out come of World War 2, not congress.

The constitution says the president controls the military. Also, several times the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has the right to control the military. It has to do with the constitution and "separation of powers".

2007-02-03 08:28:26 · 15 answers · asked by a bush family member 7 in Politics & Government Politics

Presidents don't need congress's permission to attack a country. Also, presidents control wars:

U.S. Constitution:
Article II, Section 2
"President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Article II, Section 1.
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

2007-02-03 08:35:35 · update #1

Also, Presidents Can Spend Money Sending Troops Overseas.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=boaltwp

"Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti, 18 Op. O.L.C. 173 (1994), we advised that the President had the authority unilaterally to deploy some 20,000 troops into Haiti. We relied in part on the structure of the WPR, which we argued "makes sense only if the President may introduce troops into hostilities or potential hostilities without prior authorization by the Congress." Id. at 175-76. We further argued that "in establishing and funding a military force that is capable of being projected anywhere around the globe, Congress has given the President, as Commander in Chief, considerable discretion in deciding how that force is to be deployed." Id. at 177. We also cited and relied upon the past practice of the executive branch in undertaking unilateral military interventions

2007-02-03 09:02:49 · update #2

15 answers

Wrong,,,Just absolutely horribly WRONG....

2007-02-03 08:31:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

Leverage. The president controls the military, Congress has the fundings. Anyone who went to high school SHOULD know that.

"The Congress shall have Power ... To borrow Money on the credit of the United States [fund the war]; To raise and support Armies [fund the military]"

"[Clause 12] gives Congress the power of the purse over the military. The president may send troops as he pleases, but if Congress disapporves, it does not have to issue the money to pay them until he brings them home."


Also, only Congress has the power to declare war (Article 1)

2007-02-03 08:43:33 · answer #2 · answered by Ashley 4 · 1 0

I have always voted liberally, it wasn't just the war, it's healthcare, immigration reform, education reform, religious freedom and so many other issues. George Bush and the republicans that support him are against religious freedom. Look at some of the things tha Bush has done. National Day of Prayer. Bush also stood against the military recognizing the beliefs of over 1800 American soldiers and their families.

We are gearing up for a democratic president in 2008. I'm voting for Barack Obama.

2007-02-08 05:33:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Are all you people that f'ing stupid? It doesn't matter what anybody says. They just check the polls then take a position that they think will get them the most votes!
Democrats or Republicans. They're both liars trying to get power. We're stuck in Iraq and now we need somebody with a working brain cell to help resolve the situation.
So far, there's nobody.

2007-02-10 18:12:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yet if it was CLINTON who called for this war, and told the SERIES OF LIES that Bush has for the "reasons" for this war, you'd be telling a different story.

You are a hippocrate.

It is OUR country, and OUR military, not Bush's. He is ACCOUNTABLE to the American people, and has yet to give us an HONEST reason for this war.

And before you go quoting the Constitution, take a REAL GOOD LOOK at how Bush has RAPED it, how his changes to it have SEVERLY degraded our guarantees of civil rights and protections from unfair treatment by our own government, while insulating the executiv office from oversight, and further empowering the presidency, GREATLY upsetting the "balance of powers" in our government, that you refer to as the "separation of powers". Do you think it's also his right to ignore our nation's laws, change the Constitution (that he'd sworn to protect) to absolve himself, and eliminate oversight of his office?

Are you pro-Bush, or pro-America?

You can't be both.

2007-02-03 09:12:53 · answer #5 · answered by tat2me1960 3 · 2 0

The outcome of the 2006 election had very little to do with any 'trick' by democrats. People who graduated kindergarten know when they are being screwed by their leaders and the population is tired of being coned and lied to by the republican administration. A fool is someone who does not believe what's right in front of him. Wake up, fool.

2007-02-03 08:50:51 · answer #6 · answered by rick m 3 · 2 0

you do not have a clue do you. it really is what Republicans are for and God is antagonistic to! ."..I inform you the reality, that is difficult for a wealthy guy to enter the dominion of heaven. again I inform you, that is way less stressful for a camel to flow by skill of the interest of a needle than for a wealthy guy to enter the dominion of God. Matthew 19:24" What were your intentions? thieve from the unfavorable and gives you tax cuts to the wealthy. reduce veterans hospitals, now treating one hundred and 5,000 Iraqi veterans, via one hundred Billion in 2006 and gives you tax cuts to the wealthy? Run up a three a million/2 Trillion dollar deficit, maximum which has lengthy previous to the wealthy, is your economic administration?it really is in hardship-free words a million/2 Trillion remote from being the completed of another president in historic past! Attacking a rustic that had not something to do with 9/11 or terrorism! Killing on the fringe of four,000 of our protection rigidity and 30,000 Iraqi's on account that Jan a million, 2006? Attacking the structure and violating guidelines and treaties at whim? supply no bid contracts on your friends, making company welfare and fraud the biggest accomplishment of your presidency? No, i imagine there are better effective solutions than what you ought to provide. we do not decide on "stay the route" or better of a similar! What does your god stand for? lack of life? Being antagonistic to the homeless, little ones, the elderly and the disabled. Mine is a God of love, not of hate, like your get jointly and apparently your God! i for my area do not imagine HE ought to like that very a lot!

2016-12-03 10:05:08 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Well it wasn't working the way it was that's for sure. I think they SHOULD CONTROL WARS Obviously this president doesn't have the brain to control his own business let alone the war.

If the American people dont agree then it should be taken to a vote in congress. He needs to be relieved of his duties and bring the troops home

2007-02-03 08:32:02 · answer #8 · answered by tammer 5 · 4 2

its also wrong for democrats to lie to america about Bush and the War on Iraq to trick voters to vote for them in 2008...
they do it anyway...

the only moral the democrats in congress have is "put your own personal agenda and goals before those who you wish to serve, and those who protect you (army)."

the democratic slogan after 2008 will be "FU** YOU AMERICA! IM PRESIDENT NOW BITIACH!"

2007-02-03 08:34:48 · answer #9 · answered by Corey 4 · 0 2

Yes it was wrong... It is only okay for Repubs to lie. An art which they seem to have mastered.

2007-02-11 03:38:11 · answer #10 · answered by fourhorsemen_69 1 · 0 0

These Half-wits don't wanna read actual facts! It'll only prove they were always wrong.

2007-02-03 08:44:05 · answer #11 · answered by Goggles 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers