Bush demands a "clean" war funding bill. Is Bush really in a position to demand anything at this point?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

I thought the 2006 election pretty much determined that America is in no mood for more war of lies. But the Bush administration is still in its bubble, using words no one else is using: "global war on terror", "islamic fascists", "surge" and so forth.

America is speaking a simpler language: "bring our troops home now."

Answer 1

As long as he has the title Commander and Chief and since he won the election. He has all the right and pull to say whatever he wants. Instead of crying about Bush why don't you all start looking for a candidates who has a chance to beat a Republican in an election. That should be your real concern.

Answer 2

Ha! These silly neo-cons honestly think that Bush is still relevant! He became a lame duck long ago, and his petty temper tantrums are doing nothing to change the views of MOST Americans regarding the war in Iraq. Most Americans don't want an immediate pull-out, because that would only translate into a 350 billion dollar loss, and an Iraq that would lie in shambles and civil strife.

...so instead, we'll wait until a new President is in office, and MORE of our soldiers have been killed or seriously injured. Then we can leave Iraq with a 1/2 TRILLION dollar deficit, along with a civil war that has raged on and will have most likely intensified. And we still won't be ANY closer to a "democratic Iraq" and "a country that views us as liberators." But, this is the distorted reality that we face because of the Dubya & Co. hypocrisy, and seems to be the only way to end the war in Iraq... even the president is quoted as saying so. He'll let the next president clean up his mess, because he's too cowardly, incompetent, and lazy to do it himself. The "war on terror" can't be won, mainly because it is a war that has been declared on a vague, non-descriptive noun. It's ridiculous that so many people believed in it for so long. We'll never be able to eliminate ALL of the terrorists, but at least with a new president we'll finally be able to invest our resources in places where terrorism and terrorist training is actually happening. Hell, who knows... maybe we'll even elect a president who has the time to concern himself with the capture of Osama bin Laden. (A CRAZY notion, I know.)

As for all the whining neo-con hand puppets who claim that Democrats should be worried about the next election, you guys (and gals) know where you can stick it. As of right now, the most promising looking Democratic candidates are Obama and Clinton! A half-black man, and a WOMAN! And, guess what? It's becoming increasingly likely that one of these two individuals COULD become the next President of the United States! And who do the Republicans have to stand behind so far? John McCain? Good luck making that happen...

Answer 3

My only question would be 'how many members of congress voted for the bill only because they got millions of dollars of unrelated 'pork' money for their own states, and did not actually support the intent of the Bill?' They were struggling to get enough votes to pass the Bill in the first place. It just another back door 'buy a vote' tactic that corrupt politicians use. I would say the administration wants a vote on just the war spending Bill. And I would tend to think that would not pass without all the unrelated 'add-ons'.

Answer 4

He should be thankful if he gets any money at all. Yet, here he is complaining because Democrats expect the troops to be home by September of 2008. The Democratic controlled Congress is holding the cards. Bush can't force them to give him money. He will have to compromise whether he likes it or not.

Answer 5

Not really - a veto doesn't fund his pet war. No money - no surge - no "victory". He doesn't have the power to write the law the way he could before, he just hasn't figured out he has a very weak hand and his constant "truthiness" has made his bluffs ludicrous.

Answer 6

In six years Bush vetoed on one bill passed by the rubber stamp/no nothing Republican congress. Now he must be held accountable fro his actions

Answer 7

The Democrats are currently between a rock and a hardplace. One the one hand, they made promises they don't want to keep (to end the war ASAP. The quickest, and only, way that congress can end a war is to defund it.) On the other hand, the democrats are hesitant to say, "forget the troops, we don't need them."

Answer 8

No, he isn't. He's just having a temper tantrum. This spoiled brat never had anyone say "no" to him in his whole life. He doesn't like it much, does he?

Mommy and Daddy gave him everything he ever wanted, cleaned up all his messes, kept him out of the draft, paid to have Harvard and Yale accept him, paid to make sure he got passing grades and paid for his campaigns.

He is used to getting his own way.....

Not any more. We, the people, have spoken and he is about to find out that he is NOT the "decider"; we are.

Answer 9

Bush is so completely impotent at this point, not even a truckload of little blue pills could give him any clout anywhere.

Answer 10

Anything attached to the bill that hinders it passing is a bullet in the eye of our troops in harms way. Find another way to end it if you can't stomach it.