2007-02-09 02:44:43 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
they can cut funding but the president is in charge of the army...they can try to lean on him one way or the other
2007-02-09 02:50:51 · answer #1 · answered by izaboe 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In a manner of speaking, yes. they can vote to cut off funds for the war, and if they have the 2/3 votes to override a presidential veto they can make it stick.
This was in fact done at the end of the Vietnam war. We had signed a peace treaty in January 1973 which obligated us to send financial aid to South Vietnam. In 1974 the congress voted to cut off funds, in violation of the treaty, and President Ford's veto was overridden. Although it's an open questrion whether the truce would have held in any event, this was a clear sigfnal to the world that the US would not stand by its ally, and South Vitenam fell within months. Genocide and a tide of escaping refugees swept the region.
Can it be done? Yes, it already has been, once before. But I think Bush's veto would be sustained.
Whether it SHOULD is another question.
2007-02-09 02:48:14 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As another poster pointed out, war can only be declared by Congress; the president has no authority to declare a war, and war was never declared in Iraq. Congress did give Bush an "authorization to use force" back in 2002. It is fully within the rights of Congress to rescind that authorization. And as multiple posters have indicated, Congress holds the power of the purse and could cut off funding for Bush's war.
2007-02-09 03:14:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The congress cannot end the "war" in Iraq because it is not a declared "war".
The War Powers Act does NOT give congress the right to end the war because, as stated, it is not a declared war. Actual "War" can only be declared by congress.
Congress can defund the war and bring about our defeat in Iraq, just as the dems did with Viet Nam. However, polls show Americans, by a wide margin, do not want to lose the war in Iraq. Therefore, it would be political suicide for the democrats to cut off funding for it.
2007-02-09 02:56:15 · answer #4 · answered by merlins_new_apprentice 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is a power enacted under the War Powers act and with the approval of congress. It is a fact that it is NOT in the Constitution, but it is in the legislation passed by the congress to limit the scope, or eliminate completly, the war itself. Congress can repeal its previous authorizations, and therefore end the war that way.
2007-02-09 02:51:43 · answer #5 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Congress controls the MONEY that pays for the war. I have heard the Democrats have a plan to end the war by cutting the spending for the military to the point that we have no choice but to end the war. The problem with that plan is that American soldiers already there will die because they wont have the backing they need to win the war. I suppose that is just a little problem that the Democrats can't concern themselves with because they are too busy helping the enemy.
2007-02-09 02:51:21 · answer #6 · answered by YahooGuru2u 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They can't declare an "end" to the war. All they can do is vote to NOT spend any money to pay the troops, pay for supplies, pay for bullets, etc.
Congress (especially the wimp dems) doesn't have the political guts to do that, so all they will do is continue to bi*c# and moan about "Bushes failed war", etc.
2007-02-09 02:51:08 · answer #7 · answered by tlbs101 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Nope, the best they can do is cut off funding , which would be disastrous for the troops
2007-02-09 02:49:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the war will end when we win it.
2007-02-09 02:48:07 · answer #9 · answered by Daniel-san 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋