Why do Democrats say "they don't have the votes" to stop the war?

Question

It's the people who want to keep funding the war who need the votes! Why are Democrats giving them those votes?

coragryph - you are ignoring the question. The bill to continue funding the war is being SPONSORED by Democrats. Bush's veto power has nothing to do with it - if Congress doesn't vote to continue the war, there is nothing Bush can do about it.

Real Estate - your knowledge of the law is unsound. If the Democrats do not pass the supplemental that funds the war, then there is no more war. Period.

Answer 1

They have the number of votes, they don't have the courage or unity. All that talk in the last election was just more political lies.

Answer 2

no person has ever suggested or will say something so out of the air, that the Democrat are going to lead them to come across a manner domicile. this is somewhat such as you Republicans consistently including directly to a minimum of something that the Democrat have suggested. No, we did no longer deliver them everywhere George and Cheney did that and nonetheless sending greater. The troops would be funded IF boastful Bush has the same opinion to a timetable which seventy 5 % of people conform to deliver our troops domicile. you desire to work out them being put in a meat grinder merely because of the fact one guy is so ignorant and is a Dictator. The troops are funded all the thank you to July and we desire then introduced domicile. yet, Bush and old Al Capone are use to having a clean examine , which they're going to never get lower back, consider bringing the trioops domicile in 2008 are we will not supply you the money to throw away while Iraq desire prepare there very own to combat for themselves. Bush would not care approximately those troops merely like he do no longer approximately bodies nonetheless floating around In New Orleans he's killing his Father with the help of his craziness and has embarrassed his dad so undesirable that he cries, can no longer even walk and not using a cane . tell your great President to conform to disagree. tell old ignorant no strategies Bush. the little boy desire get the money , we carry tight till he warning signs the contract no longer veto .

Answer 3

well... you need to be careful here... this isn't some simple issue... this is complex and a harsh move could EASILY backfire

the thing is... if Dems cut funding... but the president doesn't pull back the troops... and then blames Dems for the deaths due to a lack of funding... it could get UGLY quick for the Dems and start to sway back public opinion for the President...

Dems want to make a proposal to limit the funding over a time period and bring the war to an eventual end...that's the plan that most support...

but they don't want to get trapped into a public relations nightmare, especially when it wasn't even many of their intents in the first place to totally defend the troops all at once...

Answer 4

The issue is that any legislation which directly ends the war in Iraq -- either by terminating funding immediately or by repealing the original authorization for use of military force -- is going to get vetoed.

So, to pass that type of direct legislation, they would need to be able to override the veto. They don't have the votes for that.

Which is why they are making any future funding conditional on withdrawal. Bush then has two choices -- accept the additional funding and agree to the withdrawal, or veto the entire bill, in which case he doesn't get the new funding either.

Answer 5

By continuing to fund the war, by supporting the mechanisms that make the war possible, the Democratic Party is supporting war, torture, deceit and corruption. They are guilty of the same murder and crimes against humanity that the Bush crime family is guilty of. Supporting the troops is making those crimes possible.

Many liberals who make the claim of being anti-war distinguish between supporting the troops and not supporting the war. This door doesn't swing both ways. Knowing the Iraq war to be illegal and immoral, how can liberals support those who willingly participate in carrying it out?

The recent non-binding resolution passed in Congress against the escalation in Iraq has the Democrats having it both ways, again. Those in Congress who oppose war should shed the G.W. Bush avoidance complex of not taking responsibility. They should offer the proof of their convictions for ending the war by defunding it. U.S. Representative, Dennis Kucinich, stated,

The Federal Court has made it abundantly clear that once a war is well underway, Congress' real power is to cut off funds. Funding the war is approval of the war.

Answer 6

Long Hair..as usual you are ignoring the facts.....

Congress gave him the authorization to go to war by passing a LAW...
In order to stop it they must pass another...
ANY LAW THEY PASS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PRES.

if they try and stop it....he WILL VETO it.

Sorry the FACTS aren't on your side.
As much as Cora and I disagree on MOST things he is right here
Plus the fact that if they don't pass the funding bill . GW can borrow the money from other funds / Projects to keep the war going till funding is passed.
The war is authorized so until they get a law passed to stop it..the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF still has to wage it...

That IS the law

Answer 7

Good Question..

The Democrats do have control of the House but Joe Lieberman( CT) once a Democrat has now turned into a Independent who supports the war hence the trouble of the Democrats stopping the war. I hope this helps ya!

Answer 8

Becasue the Senate is not a 51 vote to have a majority. It must be 60 to pass.

Answer 9

Because, if you'd have attended social studies class you would know that the dem's need 60 votes to override a veto. They only have 51 votes. Keep up, I know things move rather fast here.

Answer 10

The Democrats have plenty of votes in the House, but not enough in the Senate. The Senate is essentially an even split (49-49-2 independents) and Senators are notorious for going against their party's will. All it takes is one or two people crossing party lines to kill a vote.

And, of course, they don't have enough in either house to overturn a Presidential veto.

Answer 11

Simply because they don't have the votes.........to defund the war would show they were wrong in voting for it, in the first place, It would also be political suicide to end the war now. Iraq would crumble into total anarchy, and the world would blame the Libs...
Another reason is that they don't have the stones it takes to stand up for what they beleive..or mabe they don't believe it, and just want the votes and support of the American Cowards ( Antis) who are scared they may have to defend their oen country and themselves.