The Constitution says that Congress cannot approve funds for war for a period longer than two years. There is a bill in Congress to approve funds for Bush's war provided he accepts a withdrawal deadline about a year and a half away.
Bush threatens to veto it and leave the troops in Iraq with no logistical support. Is that not equivalent to holding the troops as hostages?
2007-03-23 08:09:44 · 19 answers · asked by Ray Eston Smith Jr 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes he is, three tours now.
2007-03-23 08:15:00 · answer #1 · answered by Earl 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. The Democrats are holding the troops hostage based on a false reading of the November elections. They think they won some mandate to cut and run. They did no such thing. Conservatism won last November. How can you explain the elections of so many conservative Democrats?
President Bush is in no way going to leave the troops without logistical support. The President cannot appropriate funds; only the House can. If the troops are without funding, the blame will rest squarely at the feet of the Democrats. If there was such a "cut and run" mandate, the House would cut funding right now. But they can't and won't because they know the US citizenry does not want to lose the war. They talked the talk last November of surrender to the terrs, but they can't walk the walk today because they know that would be the death of them come next election.
2007-03-23 08:22:11 · answer #2 · answered by christopher s 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's the other way around. The congress is holding the troops hostage in order to force the president to do things their way.
2007-03-23 08:19:50 · answer #3 · answered by JB 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you've pretty much nailed it. the neoCON spin is "if you don't give us the BILLIONS of dollars we demand without strings attached you're undermining and endangering the troops." the problem with that is that the Dems never intended to defund the troops already there in Iraq. the Dems are trying to find a way to make the Iraqi government accountable for the running of their own country and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.
but the neoCONs love this war for profit. they've fattened their bank accounts and stock portfolios considerably and will continue to do for as long as they can. Bu$hCo ... a subsidiary of the Military Industrial Complex.
2007-03-23 08:27:36 · answer #4 · answered by nebtet 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
sure, the overpowering majority of congress voted to approve the authorization for using militia tension. The administration offered fake data to Congress, the UN, and the yankee human beings with the intention to income the approval although. The UN risk-free practices council nevertheless did not approve the conflict decision offered to them. that's probably the justifications human beings held the French in plenty contempt on the time (Freedom Fries and so on), because of the fact France, alongside with frequently Russia and Germany, replaced into outspoken against the U. S. and uk decision to flow to conflict with Iraq.
2016-10-19 10:56:15 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, Bush would rather sacrifice the United States of American in its entirety than to admit he and his crony advisers never did have any plans about this war from the get go. Awe and shock was good except they never really have any knowledge of the Muslims and Islamic religion, to deal with after the awe and shock.
2007-03-23 08:32:55 · answer #6 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have it just the opposite! The dems are holding our military and its commander in chief hostage with pork barrel spending and and a disastrous pull out date. The terrorists just love to know when we are hightailing it with our tail between our legs! The dems, oblivious to the obvious of what is best for our country and troops, are on their anit-Bush agenda, no matter what.
2007-03-23 08:19:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Only in the minds of limp liberals.
2007-03-23 09:56:53 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nice spin. I guess it could be asked if the Congress is playing politics with the war, using the soldiers as their pawns.
Great idea to give the enemy a timetable, I've heard that works all the time.
2007-03-23 08:14:05 · answer #9 · answered by Gus K 3 · 5⤊ 4⤋
No. Being a hostage means you are being held captive somewhere against your will. Our brave troops are over there willingly fighting and dying to protect us - they knew what they were getting themselves into when they signed up for the armed services.
2007-03-23 08:14:11 · answer #10 · answered by Galaxie Girl 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
That's exactly what Bush is doing.
He's using his Presidential authority, just like Congress is using theirs. That's the political showdown we're facing.
The difference is, Congress is willing to compromise. They've offered Bush the money he wants, and 18 months to withdraw, rather than refusing to give any money and demanding immediate withdrawal.
Bush just doesn't want to compromise. He's an all-or-nothing type of Decider.
2007-03-23 08:13:23 · answer #11 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 5⤋