Will Bush Veto the Troops funding?

Question

Will he put our military at the edge? Because he wants to stay in Iraq? Is the surge working? Will it ever work in Iraq?
Shouldn't the USA be thinking more about OUR people?
Did the Congress vote on America's behalf?

Congress voted for the war YES!
But the reasons for the war were corrupt and false!
Do you remember the last time the Patriot act was passed?The Reps. put over 100 earmarks and other stuff in with it! SO DEMs & Reps. are guilty of SUCH!

I don't think the surge is working.....there is more violence than before!
This Gov. is not a MONARCHY!!!!!
The president does not have full power!..........somebody tell Bush...........

So what,,,All of you BushBots think that All the $$$ from our taxes should go only to IRAQ? What about our own people? a couple bucks for us people and BILLIONS to IRAQ?

Answer 1

From where I stand, Bush has painted himself into a nasty corner. He is unwilling to accept any compromise on his position in Iraq. The democrats have been clear in their funding proposition, and if Bush vetos it...HE will be the one who DECIDES to cut the funding. His threats that the Democrats will be to blame is ridiculous. Deflection of blame does not help the troops, and I think they are more concerned with support than the politics of blame.

Answer 2

None of this stuff will impression funding of the troops interior the sphere. At worst, some stuff stateside will be juggled till the video games are executed being performed (DoD civil service workers being despatched residing house for a week or 2, etc). Congress will push the bill by for a veto because individuals opt for cut-off dates (polls run interior the intense 50's). The bill will come back to Congress and a compromise will be struck. The cut-off dates would get replaced with 'aims'. aims may be disregarded if the circumstances needed for reaching the aims have not been met. Regardless, the aims could have a large impression on the 2008 election (observe that the cut-off dates all fall for the time of election season). If the aims are not met, it confirms that US efforts in Iraq were a failure and sinks the marketing campaign of any candidate urging a continuation of troops previous 2008. If the aims are met, or if we are making progression and are incredibly on the fringe of assembly them (1972's "Peace is at hand", as an instance), then it sinks the marketing campaign of the doubters that were pushing for the US to resign. The bill only united statesthe ante for 2008. also, the bill wasn't used as an excuse to bypass more than a number of beef - the beef became to achieve sufficient votes to get the bill handed. In different words, really a number of the votes for the bill were 'offered'.

Answer 3

President Bush will veto the non military based time table set forth by congress. He will veto Congress' attempt to legislate war. Congress has the power to de-fund the war, but is overstepping its bounds trying to put into place laws regarding the military operations.
President Bush states months ago that he would veto any bill that did this. Yet Congress has gone ahead, wasting time and tax payer dollars, to push through this PORK riddled bill. They knew upfront it would be vetoed. It was done with nothing but partisan politics in mind. They would push the funding with a timetable (along with all sorts of non essential special interest spending) This was done in hopes of trying to make President Bush look bad if he vetoed military funding. And plenty of people, not knowing the whole fact will say just that. Just wait for the Y!A questions on why the President doesn't support the troops and what not.
President Bush will follow through with his word. Congress voted on their own behalf. The votes were bought with pork barrel funding.

ADD: Patton: When it passes through the Senate 50-48, I doubt that they have the majority to do a Veto Override. Just basic civics....

Answer 4

Jeeze how many questions do you have here?
The president should veto any bill for funding the military that contains pork or unconstitutional conditions restricting his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

The surge is working.

Victory in Iraq is in the best interest of Americans.

Congress voted for the war nearly unanimously. They can either fund it or not. They do not have the constitutional authority to place any conditions on that funding.





.

Answer 5

It was only a matter of time before someone asked this question. Its the pathetic liberal democraps who have presented a catch22 bill such as this knowing full well that Bush would veto it and justifyably so. All you liberals know how to do is complain about how Bush puts our troops in danger blah, blah, blah. They never stop to look in the mirror and see who the real commies are that are placing the military personel in danger by their political gutless game playing.

Answer 6

No. He will veto a bill loaded with pork that tries to usurp his constitutional authority as commander in chief and doom all chance of bringing the Iraq conflict to a conclusion that will protect American interests and allies in the Middle East.

Answer 7

you must be talking about the support all but our troops bill just passed by the socialists. HOPE SO.

tree funds and tours of washington and time limits don't fund our troops.

stop the crap and support our troops or admit you dont.
Lets see a bill from the left that actually supports the troops and he'll sign it. Leave out the special interest , If not be prepared for a ship storm and democratic enema.

Answer 8

Congress did not vote on our behalf. The Dems already broke their promise of a less corrupt congress by filling this bill with pork and earmarks.

Answer 9

Yes, Bush will veto.
I don't think the surge is working and I don't think it will work.
Yes, the US should be thinking more about OUR people.
The Dems voted for an issue that they think will get them elected. I may be cynical but I don't believe they did it for any other reason.

Answer 10

Libs are the ones who are cutting troop funding.