Why do Democrats think Bush can veto any attempt they make to stop the war?

Question

Bush only has the power to veto bills that Congress passes. If Congress refuses to pass the supplemental that funds the war, that will stop the war and Bush can't do anything about it.

How about a little honesty here? The Democrats promised to end the war, and after 2 months in power they are breaking that promise.

archangel, do you mean the backlash from the people who elected them to stop the war? You are wrong again.

CC - please read the question. They don't have to pass anything. They simply have to not approve the funding bill.

Steve E - how dense can you be??? PLEASE read the question.

coragryph - Congress very easily could write a supplemental that gives the military the necessary funds to bring the troops home now, and nothing more.

They chose not to do that, because they are not really anti-war and have been lying to their supporters all along.

JD - you're wrong. The bill the Democrats are now working on will fund the war and only the war. If they decided not to pass it, it would have no effect on the rest of government.

g - Congress can very easily write a supplemental bill that pays for troop withdrawal, VA benefits, and veteran health care, and nothing else. They can go into as much budgetary detail as they want and fund only what they want and nothing else. That is what the power of the purse is all about.

This idea that Bush will leave them in Iraq without bullets and blame Democrats is sheer fantasy.

okay g, Bush can have the supplemental that only pays for withdrawal and VA benefits, or he can have nothing. Either way, Congress has all the power...and all the responsibility for the war.

Answer 1

LOL, I hope they take your advice. The backlash from the american people will be unmerciful.

If they defund the troops the troops will not have the supplies they need to carry out their function and the backlash from that would be horrendous hairy freak.

Answer 2

well... FIRST... I don't remember ANYONE saying they promised to END THE WAR IN TWO MONTHS... most promised to work toward the end of the war and most said it would take at least a year (some more)... if you listened to them... and that's EXACTLY what the bills they are introducing are SAYING...working toward the end

there may have been a few that said "NOW"... but 2 or 3 can't do it alone... and the vast majority didn't say that...

start paying attention to what they are saying...

I mean... what if we CUT FUNDING... AND BUSH DIDN'T PULL THE TROOPS BACK? I asked this question before and you didn't answer? Do you think he wouldn't try to hurt the Dems using the troops and say "they are dying because the Dems cut funding"?

EDIT: Have you seen what Bush has been doing for the past 6 years... pure fantasy seems to be the medium he works in... just saying... I've said many times "he won't do that, that's just pure fantasy"... yet he keeps on doing the things he's doing...

not much would surprise me anymore... and they would still have some general defense department funding that's always in every budget...

and wouldn't they have to pass that supplemental bill in the senate and wouldn't that be open to a veto?... they don't have 60 votes there... it may be "all" or "nothing"

Answer 3

He can't veto a House Resolution, can he? He also threatened to veto any bill they DO pass. The last thing I read on it was they were going to approve more troops, but there is a deadline to withdraw the troops by next year.

I did read the question. I was just wondering if he could because I couldn't remember.

Steve E has a good point, but there are still some Republicans out there against the war as well.

Answer 4

The funding for the Iraq War was put into the federal budget if congress tables the suplemental bills for the Iraq War then it will have the effect of shutting down the government...remember Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton's impass? That was solved by an executive order of emergency funding of the Federal Budget. Bill Clinton remained President and Newt Gingrich was forced to resign. Do you think Nancy is ready to step down?

Answer 5

You are correct. Congress can refuse to vote for any funding, as a blanket denial of funds, which would be one approach.

But it is an approach that harms the troops, by leaving them without the resources to stay, and without funding to pay for getting them safely home.

Which is why the conditional funding proposal, linking the additional funds to a timed withdrawal home, is a compromise that makes sense.

Answer 6

well witht he current makeup of the senate being 49/49/2 i belive dependson who is jumping ship also this week to override a veto takes 2/3 majority... the votes just arent there to override a veto since it would take 66 senators to override... and it is a political season, so noone wants to be on the losing side of a bill atm...the problem is that politicians do not stand up for their own or their districts beliefs anymore. the stand up for the dollar, and their legacy... so to not rock the boat for any reason is their best plan in their own opinions....

Also the finding bill is soo stuffed with earmarks and pork, they can;t vote against it sicne they plugged so many of their own special interests into it... like spinich funding and other farming earmarks read the bill its full od s$%T

Answer 7

I don't know why you can't comprehend this... it takes 60 votes to override a presidential veto. The Democrats have 52 maybe 53. They CAN NOT OVVERIDE HIS VETO NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY PISS AND MOAN.
i'D LOVE TO HEAR THE aMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN THE DEM'S DON'T DO ANYTHING AND LET THE FUNDING RUN OUT. WHY DON'T YOU JUST GIVE THE REPUBLICANS CONTROL OF THE HOUSE,SENATE AND PRESIDENCY AGAIN IN 08' The people will not tolerate not funding the troops and the Democrats know it.

Answer 8

Our elected representatives, if not the American people, now regard as normal such heinous actions as war crimes, the rape of the Constitution, self-serving use of government office, and the constant stream of lies and propaganda from the highest offices of the executive branch.

Like kids desensitized to violence by violent video games and movies and pornography addicts desensitized to sex, we have become desensitized by the avalanche of Bush-Cheney crimes, lies, and disdain for Congress, courts, and public opinion.

The previous occupant of the White House could not escape being impeached by the House of Representatives for lying about a consensual Oval Office sexual affair. President Nixon and his vice president, a saintly pair compared to Bush-Cheney, were both driven from office for offenses that are inconsequential by comparison. Liberals branded Ronald Reagan the "Teflon President," but the neoconservatives' Iran-Contra scandal was a mere dress rehearsal for their machinations in the Bush regime.

If the notion has departed that the highest political offices in the land are supposed to be occupied by people who are honest and faithful to their oath to the Constitution, then we are far advanced on the road to tyranny.

Answer 9

Obama is coming up his very own mess which would be left to next pres. to freshen up. He could study from history and consider previously as to whilst the mess began. redj101 has stable factors in answer. Banks took in extra suitable than banking like promoting coverage, shares and bonds, and so on. They had to work together in promoting real supplies and the NAR stopped that. such countless conflicts of pastime. So now the clueless one runs around like a hen with out his head and guess what? extra mess

Answer 10

You are correct that at least 65% or more of people are against the war. But the polls about cutting off funding are different. People tend to be against the war but still not in favor of cutting off funding. 61% in a USA Gallup poll say they are against cutting off funding. I believe it needs to be clearer to the public that that is the tool we have.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm