Will the voice of America's anti-war majority prevail, or not?
2007-04-02 06:00:39 · 18 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
dr_methane, you assume the Democrats naturally do whatever most Americans want. They do not. They have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything to stop the war.
2007-04-02 06:17:39 · update #1
Joe M, people didn't vote for the Democrats so they could wash their hands of the Iraq war.
They elected them to stop it.
2007-04-02 06:18:48 · update #2
Just to be clear, Bush is in a position of weakness here.
If no bill passes authorizing "emergency funding" for the war, then the war is unfunded, and Bush will have to start scaling back spending in the May-June timeframe.
Joke's all on Bush - he's been playing budget games keeping the war spending in "emergency" mode since the war started, and could have maintained better financial continuity by simply being honest about it and including it in his overall budget.
Congress can wait this one out while Bush throws bigger and bigger tantrums.
Oh, and incidentally every single one of the Republican Congress passed "emergency" war spending bills has been laden with pork too. See link on the Republican bill from last April. Hypocrites.
2007-04-02 06:08:26 · answer #1 · answered by Mark P 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The troops will be funded, no doubt about it. This is a game played by the Legislative and Executive branches of government. It is not the first time it has happened nor will it be the last.
Bush will veto the bill. The Democrats will pass another, funding the troops just in the nick of time. But the Democrats will claim victory because they tried to do the will of the people but the President and some Republicans in Congress prevented that from happening. The Administration will claim victory because the troops will be funded eventually and Georgie's little war will drag on further.
2007-04-02 06:14:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If there really was a true anti war majority as you claim the Dems would have simply put up a bill that cuts off the funding to the war....but of course they did not have the cojones to do that since the vast majority of Americans do not agree with that. I do agree that the leftist anti war types after the veto will be howling at the moon calling the Democrats out on this.
2007-04-02 06:08:35 · answer #3 · answered by dr_methanegasman 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe they will come back with a real bill instead of a posturing campaign sound bite for 08, so wonder (According to gallop) on 24% approve of the palosi congress. The Anti-war crowd is still the minority, if it wasn't for the "Conservative" Democrat's the left would not be in power, why do you think the 1st bill hand to be loaded with"Pork" to get it through the far left agenda of it minority base.
2007-04-02 06:12:59 · answer #4 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stalemate.....I think the Democrats should fund the bill with no strings attached, that way Bush will not able to say that Dems are at all responsible for this travesty of a war.
2007-04-02 06:07:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
They are already working on a new bill. The people need to continue pressuring their representatives to vote against this war. Eventually, yes. I don't believe people understand the best tool congress has is to quit funding. Public support of that has to be wide spread.
2007-04-02 06:10:23 · answer #6 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
How would you like to be one of our war torn service men/women in horrible living conditions, fighting your A$$ off, and know in America there are people (DIMS) that could give a $h*T about you.
They have a political agenda and they don't care who it hurts.
Shame on you Fancy Pelosi! Shame!
2007-04-02 06:11:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush will be playing right into their hands.
The whole reason the dems are doing what they are doing right now is to make sure that there is ZERO doubt that this failed attempt at a 'war' belongs to bush and the republicans.
2007-04-02 06:11:27 · answer #8 · answered by Joe M 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
and so...let's see a way out of all of this bs..Pelosi and the group will put forth portions of the bill little by little, giving funds little by little. It's not as though all of the money has to be paid out immediately. In fact that's what they should have done to begin with. What's Bush going to so. "Oh you have to give it to me all at one time.?"
The ball lis not in his hands at this point...and if he thinks so, it may well backfire...'pork' spending or not.
2007-04-02 06:07:16 · answer #9 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
probably not. Neither side wants to take the blame for the inevitable failure of Iraq. Its all about avoiding blame now.
2007-04-02 06:17:30 · answer #10 · answered by Zenrage 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋