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

12 answers

Congress has the power to cut off funding. they cut off funding the Vietnam war and 2,000,000 Vietnamese and Cambodians died. If we leave, a millions of Iraqi's will be slaughtered, the oil fields will be overtaken by Al Queda.

2007-02-15 15:58:35 · answer #1 · answered by ccguy 3 · 1 2

Nope. The lib's running congress can't stop the Iraq war. They can pass meaningless resolutions posturing themselves as the champions of peace. Call it the Politics of Feel-goodism.

However, if they had any testicular virility, they would simply cut off funds and the war would end. A financial surrender, if you will.

The lib's possess no such fortitude.

In their lust for power, the liberals have aided the enemy and hastened our retreat, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Casting the relatively minor disruptions around Baghdad as a sign of chaos with the willing assent of the American Press, all so we can have the communists back in power.

You would think that the whole of Iraq is one big civil war over there. Talk to a soldier who has been there. The goofballness is all 30 miles around Baghdad. That's it. The rest of the country is basically quiet, but that doesn't make headlilnes. It also doesn't put liberals in power in the US.

Neither do revelations that the Iranians are arming the enemy.


David Gregory - reporter extraordinaire!!!!
"Hey Dave! Ask Hillary an unscripted question!! C'mon!! Just ONE!!"


Darth Serious

2007-02-15 16:10:08 · answer #2 · answered by the professional iconoclast 2 · 0 0

The legislative veto of the War Powers act was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So they cannot physically take the troops out of Iraq. They can only use the power of funding to send a message to the executive branch to pull out. Should they have this power? It's really anyone's guess. It's also to be known that no President has acknowledged the constitutionality of the War Powers act as a whole.

2007-02-15 16:00:11 · answer #3 · answered by King Ebeneezer 3 · 1 0

Yes but it is not easy. They would have to impeach him then be required to have 2/3 voting for it; although, it can be done.

The other way that is also very difficult is to take away all the monies the president uses to do anything. The problem with this one is that we already have troops deployed and they cut off funding in an attempt to stop the madman, Bush, they will hurt the troops. No American wants to do that.

They can also resend, or cancel, the authority they gave him over the war but the problem is there are troops deployed.... same thing.

Impeachment is what they should do...

2007-02-19 13:05:13 · answer #4 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0 0

The Congress provides up the conflict at any time they elect. All they might desire to do is vote to stop investment and it is over. they are not going to try this for various reasons. the main extreme is they have not got the help required to bypass one in all those decision and that they be conscious of it. reasonable Democrats are already threatening to filibuster the management in the event that they attempt. Mark this, Democrats, no longer Republicans are threatening to filibuster different Democrats. Congress can not and should no longer attempt to micromanage the conflict. The President makes a decision how the conflict would be fought, Congress makes a decision whether the conflict justifies investment. the 2nd reason is via the fact for as lots lip centers as Democrats pay to ending the conflict they be conscious of ending this in a cut back and run, or withholding necessary factors would desire to combat isn't considered nicely if all of it blows up. What you're seeing is politics as huge-unfold in Washington. some thing would not flow your way blame the different guy as loud and as in many cases as achieveable. curiously you have fallen for the ploy, believing that the Democrats certainly have the braveness to place their necks on the line.

2016-12-17 11:08:43 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

They can't override directly, but CAN stop funding for the war so the president is forced to stop the war. I don't know about if they should or not, since I'm not very old yet.

2007-02-15 16:00:11 · answer #6 · answered by LightningKnex 2 · 0 0

No congress doesn't have the power to control the military, the President is commander in chief of the U.S. Military ; he calls all the shots, he puts in charge generals, and commanders to run the war from the field, but they report to him, by and Executive order he can over rule congress, with a swipe of his pen. And no I don't think we should give up on everything, because it gets hard what are we teaching our children, and what will they have to look forward to, if we turn our backs on the troops now, like, American's did on our troops in Vietnam, I personally wouldn't fight for a country, that turned it's back on me... .would you?

2007-02-15 16:53:28 · answer #7 · answered by MOPE DE VOPE 2 · 0 0

The Congress has the power to annul and amend the policies, declaration and actions of the President as provided for in the Constitution.

2007-02-15 16:25:31 · answer #8 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 0

according to the Constitution no they don't have. But what does the Constitution matter to power hungry congressmen?

Congress voted to give him war powers. Now to suit their agenda, they want it back. They can defund the war, but that would be political suicide so that won't happen.

and NO they shouldn't. They should shut up and let our military run and win the war

2007-02-15 16:03:16 · answer #9 · answered by Kye H 4 · 1 2

No, their only recourse once they have authorized force is to ensure our defeat by pulling funding and equipment from the Troops leaving them to die.
This is why were getting this impotent resolution from them now. They don't have the stones to act on their convictions because it would confirm their contempt for America.

2007-02-15 16:02:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers