Why congress is afraid of cutting funds?

Question

Cut the funds, pulling out of Iraq is a win for the lives of our marines. Every life a marine loses is another Vietnam.

Answer 1

The problem with many Democratic politicians is that, unlike Republicans, the Democrats are often afraid of sticking to their guns in the face of opposition.

I'm not sure which is worse -- blindly pressing ahead because you never question your convictions, or refusing to move at all because you're afraid of making a mistake...

Per the Constitution (Article I section 8), Congress has the job of allocating federal funds, including military funds, and setting the rules and regulations for the military. So, the only question is whether they will actually do their job.

Answer 2

Ahhh.. great question. You see, they KNOW we can't leave Iraq right now... remember last summer, when the Bush Administration announced they expected at least a partial withdrawal to start the Spring/Summer of 2008? Guess what, the Dem's just this week announced their plan to withdraw starting in the Fall of 2008!!

Now, correct me if I'm wrong... but the new "plan" which returns our troops later than the original plan, combined with their failure to cut the defense budget... well, it SURE makes it look like the entire election was JUST about politics and "spinning" the war to win the election... after all, if they REALLY believed everything they said, everything they did to fire up the liberal voters, they'd have stood by it when the time came. And they haven't.

They say what they have to say to win elections... They do what they have to do to get the public agitated enough to go out and vote... And then they continue with business as usual... Which just proves the campaigning was just a bunch of smoke screen.

Sad that they can't see how beneficial it would be to join together to support the efforts toward getting the job done and bringing our troops home. But even though that's what the country needs, they're more interested in saving their own jobs and getting elected/re-elected... winning control of the congress... than to do what's right.

Answer 3

Congress is filled with cowards!

It is very easy for a Senator or Representative to hide in their respective houses and parties and blend in, not having to take responsibility for what they do by sticking questionable pork bills as attachments to bills that need to be passed.

But when it comes to war, they can not do that. So they try very hard not to make a vote that can come back to haunt them. That is why since DEC 8, 1941, a declaration of war has not been issued for any of the conflicts the USA has become involved in. They can sit back and let the President act and if things do not go well, the President gets all the blame.

The War Powers Act was just a lame attempt to get back some of the control without having to following the Constitution.

If Congress now cuts money for Iraq, forcing the President to pull out the troops, they WILL have to take the blame if things go down hill after that, However, they are just as cowardly in that regard as with declaring war in the first place.

In my opinion, since our Representatives and Senators do not have the courage to either declare war or force an end to the war, with none of them standing up and trying to force the vote, none of them are fit to be president.

Which is probably why since Kennedy in 1960 no sitting Senator or Representative has been elected president. Rather we look elsewhere for our leaders, with Governors being the #1 source since Kennedy. Governors are proven leaders, and can not hide in the "house" with the rest of the pack.

Answer 4

The Vietnam slaughter. The U.S. government led by the Democrats pulled that stunt in Vietnam and it cost millions of deaths and even more refugees.

The Democrats would never ever gain repect among foreign countries. Many countries are willing to loose thousands and even millions of people while the Democrats aren't willing to lose anybody. What would the Democrats do if Cuba attacked Guantanamo with mortars? Probably order a retreat. What about a car bomb at an American base in Britan? Same thing.

If they are unwilling to help allies under attack, then other countries will refuse to be allies of the U.S. At what point would the U.S. government start to take a stand? The ancient Greeks and Romans, tired of war, were willing to surrender and pay bribes on the city level till their countries collapsed.

Answer 5

Because if they cut the funding any deaths after the cut would be blamed on them. They like the blame just where it is. If they would allow the military to do what they need to do and stabilize the region, then we can come home. Meanwile the "insurgents" are using the american media and people like Cindy Sheehan to win their war of attrition. the more divided we are here in America the better they like it.

Answer 6

Because the job isnt done, and the job will never be done until the troops are truly allowed to wage war. If they were able to fight like we have in past wars, then this would be over in no time. Instead, to many people seem to think that "innocent civilian" lives in Iraq are more important the the lives of our troops, when they cant even tell the difference between the enemy and a civilian.

Answer 7

Then they'd be following thru with what they promised before the election. I hope they do cut the funding. That would be the end of the Democratic party. Unlike you, most of the Dems (with exception to Reid, Pelosi & Murtha) are smart enough to realize it.

Answer 8

They really, sincerely want this to end by the end of next year, and they're afraid to do anything to screw it up. Meanwhile, they stand on the "Bush screwed up" platform and get away with it.

But, come Jan 2009, George Bush will go home to his ranch, and, hey, congress, he won't be here to blame anymore~!

Answer 9

Wonderful example of Liberal convoluted logic. Have a glass of Kool aid.