Cutting funding tho Iraq war hurts, who?

Question

I keep hearing that congress doesn't wants to cut funding toward the Iraq war. Now we know that President Bush is going to send in the extra troops no matter what congress does. That means that the troops will be sent in with less then what they need. I thought that congress supported the troops. Sending troops in with less then what they need doesn't sound like support to me. Can someone explain to me what is going on. I'm so confused!

Answer 1

If the Democrat controlled congress cuts the funding, they will be viewed by the military and the families of the servicemen & women as the people who set them up for failure. President Bush will ask Congress to increase funding for the troops now that the surge will happen and the Democrats in Congress will complain and give empty threats, but honestly, there is nothing they can really do, except cut the funding, which would cause them to loose the next election.

AverageJoe-The American military is a volenteer force made up of mostly middle class Americans. They are not the poor folk you think they are. In fact, if you do a little research, you will find that the "poor population" is underrepresented in the American Armed Forces. And what do you think America will gain from this war? A new colony? That is ridiculous. We have gained a military ally in a radical part of the world and we will never fully leave Iraq...there will probably be a permanent base set up there, but that does not mean we are taking over their country!

Answer 2

Congress is excercising their option to not fund the troop escalation. They haven't talked about cutting funding for troops already on the ground. They, nor we, the people, want this "surge" that madman in the White House has set up. Congress is trying to bring him under control and enforce the will of the people. They are trying to do it diplomatically.

If Mr. Bush continues to further escalate this dirty business, Congress can - and will - cut off funding for the war. What will happen then? The same thing that happened when funding was finally cut off during the Vietnam mess..... The troops will have to be brought home as there will be no more money supplied to the armies.

When a president is out of control, not listening to the people, not taking "gentle" hints from Congress and continues to do what he wants with disregard to who he is supposed to listen to, drastic steps sometimes have to be taken. Mr. Bush is the worst president my country has ever had.... he is, I believe, a true sociopath who believes he - and only he - has all the answers and knows the right path. When the Repubs were in control of the House and Senate, they were too chicken-hearted to bring him under control. Our new members are not chicken-hearted at all. They are, however, giving him a chance to do the right thing. If he doesn't then they will cut funding.....

Answer 3

Congress’ approval score might want to pass up. The Democrats don’t have adequate votes to override Bush’s vetoes yet they have the skill to refuse to pass any more desirable funding for the war. the yank human beings want the war ended. The Democrats have tried being sensible and cooperative even though it doesn’t artwork. they're on record as having tried. in the adventure that they could’t get previous the obstructionist Republicans and Bush’s vetoes then they ought to take a more desirable frustrating line frame of mind. the commonplace public will approve. The Democrats also should be prepared to effectively counter the Bush propaganda which will follow the reducing of funding.

Answer 4

Hmm. Democrats, Congress, Liberals don't support the war. Wasn't it Donald Rumsfeld, (none of the above) when he was in a position to do something about it, who said, "You fight with what you've got."?

Apparantly Rumsfeld thought you could fight a war in Iraq with a stream-lined, stripped-down, technically superior force. He paid little or no attention to the military commanders, and little or no attention to the costs. (When asked about the projected $200 billion price tag, Rumsfeld with great authority replied, "Baloney.")

So let's just fight the war the way Rumsfeld wanted to do it. Keep the costs down, and bring home the superflous troops.

Answer 5

They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic;
that we are a free and self-governing people. That is too much, even for a joke. ...
Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder...
And that is war in a nutshell.
The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.

Answer 6

That's just it; congress DOES NOT support our military.