With the war quickly running out of money (45 - 60 days according to the media), can Bush really afford to veto the war budget likely to be passed to him by Congress w/o seriously hampering the 'surge' he has implemented? Time isn't a luxury, is it?
**side note** Could he be accused, politically, of 'not supporting the troops' if he does?
2007-03-29 14:22:09 · 8 answers · asked by Tony H 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's what political maneuvering is all about.
Congress did what they they could, within the powers granted to them under the Constitution. And Bush forced the confrontation by refusing to go along with any sort of compromise.
Yes, if Bush vetoes the funding bill because he wants unlimited and unfettered control over the military, that's his choice. He would be choosing to put his personal agenda and desire for power above the needs of the troops.
Congress is doing what the American people want, and what the Constitution requires them to do -- allocate funds and represent the interests of their voting constituents.
Bush is only pursuing his personal agenda.
2007-03-29 14:25:14 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
That was the plan all along. There will be money for the troops eventually but the Congress has done its job and will continue to represent the people. Names are being taken of those who get in the way of the people's will and those on the list who will run for reelection in 2008 will suffer. Democrats will bring out that list time and time again to remind voters who did and who did not support the will of the people. It looks like we may be heading for another Democratic Landslide.
2007-03-29 14:28:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush did not want to abide by the Geneva Convention,, so he pouted until he got both parties to go to Camp David,, or Kennebunkport,,, for the weekend and allow him to make his own laws,, now he cringes because Iran has British hostages,,, Republicans are screaming,, they broke the laws,, they broke the laws,,,
the Geneva Convention would have applied to Iran and other countries,, but Bush chose to ignore the international treaty involving prisoners of war,, he has subjected US soldiers as well ,,,,,, to any interpretation of torture that the leaders of other countries would desire,,,,,
Bush will have to be subjected to his own laws as a war criminal too,,, will the USA want to see him executed,, Texas style,,, and Cheney too,,,, a double execution,, televised,,,
I'll bet the born-again Christians would love it,,,,,,,,
2007-03-29 14:35:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, this is a bad bill. I hope he goes to a show down. It will get Democrats out of power for decades. Americans do not want defeat, which the Democrats are so vested in.
2007-03-29 14:28:34 · answer #4 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush already said he would Veto, you guys might not like it but he still has the power.
What is the worst thing that could happen to him, not get re-elected? He does not have that to worry about anyhow.
2007-03-29 14:28:28 · answer #5 · answered by Dina W 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No because most American,s aren't as stupid as Democrat voters.
2007-03-29 14:25:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
bush never supported the troops. he doesn't care, they are just meat to him.
2007-03-29 14:26:50 · answer #7 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
W backs himself into a corner with every stupid decision he makes!!!!
2007-03-29 14:25:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋