How is Bush's claim true?

Question

Today he said that, by withholding funds from the troops (which Congress is NOT doing, by the way), Congress is actually forcing troops to stay in combat longer, and forcing other troops to return to combat sooner.

How is this possible? What money pays for this, since Congress is "withholding funding"?

Yes, I know, Reid threatened to withhold funding, but right now, nothing is bring withheld, so let's deal with the facts as they are, okay? And I'm looking for rational answers, not party-bashing. Explain, rationally, how the bill Congress passed is going to result in more troops having to be there, and for a longer period of time.

Anyone?

pedohunt: Bush has already said that the timeline, not the pork, is the reason for the veto. Take all the pork away... is he really going to sign the bill? Your answer is irrelevant.

Captain: Okay, so why does withholding money force us to ship MORE troops to Iraq? You make no sense.

Louis G: Doesn't answer the question. Bush is saying it will force us to redeploy troops that are already home.

Harley: So it's okay for the President to hold the country hostage because he feels like it??? Because he's going to childishly veto anything about this war that forces it to ever come to an end, we shouldn't bother?

Answer 1

I think what he means is that he is going ahead with this war no matter what we the public thinks and no matter what Congress does. So if they hold up new funding, that means the troops already there will have to stay longer, with less equipment and less training. In other words, he won't stop the war but he will try to run it on an even smaller shoestring than he was already running it on.

So the end result will be that the people who claim to support the troops will be giving them even less than they are now and putting them in even more dangerous situations.

Answer 2

Amidst all of the bs tossed in to rile up the public (withholding funding from troops, being offended by the pork) comes a sliver of truth about how the administration really feels about the bill.

If Congress is fighting with the President about whether troops should be in Iraq, it will encourage the opposition to continue on a little longer since victory is just around the corner.

That viewpoint may be right or wrong, but I think Bush honestly does see it that way. The rest has to be tossed in because most people in America seem to have reached the point where they don't care about victory or defeat in Iraq - just get the US out of there and let the Iraqis figure things out for themselves.

I'm not sure most Americans really realize the consequences of going that route, either. A civil war between ethnic groups within a country can last 25 to 50+ years. This would be a civil war in the heart of oil country. On the other hand, the chances of resolving a civil war through a peaceful sharing of power between the different ethnic groups turns out to be almost zero - it's been done once in South Africa thanks to Nelson Mandela. It's not a good situation either way we go.

Answer 3

This entire war of words between the two parties is nothing more than posturing for 2008. Nothing Bush, Cheney, Pelosi or Reid says can be or even should be believed. Funding for the troops is not an immediate issue, there is sufficient funding available to last through July and the president and congress know this. It's all partisan rhetoric and we should all realize that too and let our representatives know we are aware of it. I have.

Answer 4

Here's the deal. It takes money to train and rotate replacement troops. It takes FAR less to simply leave the troops where they are (extend tours). Further, they are currently needing to decrease the length of time between rotations, because of insufficient replacement troops.

Now, it really is a red herring, because they still have money from their last appropriations.

Its really Bush playing politics. Sort of like when the gas goes up at you local gas station over-night because the oil (not yet refined) prices went up. However, everybody wants the troops in harms way properly supplied, trained and rotated. But most want them out of there.

Bush says -- they are going to be there -- so pay to equip them without strings.

Dems and the public say -- lets get those folks back home.

Question -- if Congress can declare war -- can they declare end of war?

Answer 5

I guess he was refering to Reid's threat, not the current situation. If you withhold funds, the troops cant get their supplies, and have less to fight with. More supplies make the troops better equiped and in return can get the job done faster, or so it should work that way, except bush is staying the course. What we need is more funds and a new attack plan.

Answer 6

Because he cannot sign it for the fact that they included a fixed timeline for troop withdrawal which is not within their Constitutional power. If he signs the bill as it is he in effect is agreeing that Congress is also a "Commander in Chiefs(s)) of the the Armed Forces (which they are not). Hence, this political ploy by the Dems could potentially prolong the conflict as the enemy gets news just like you and I and they can feel they are one-step closer to achieving their goal of getting the US out before Iraq can stand on its own.

If Congress does not agree with the war and want the troops home. And this is their conviction, then they should pull funding of the war and present that to the American people and the President. Not play politics of "we will fund the troops with the following conditions". That is in direct conflict with the President's authority to be Commander in Chief as spelled out in the constittution.

Answer 7

Yes, let's deal with the facts as they are. The funding bill is laden with problems. First and foremost, it is tied to deadlines to withdraw. This undermines the entire war just at a time when we have reached a turning point. It endangers the servicemen and women and interferes with the ability to successfully carry out our mission.
Also, the bill is laden with "pork". Millions upon millions of appropriations having -0- to do with the war were added on so that the Dems could buy votes in Congress. For instance, the bill includes mega millions for peanut storage!
So, the problem is that the bill itself is fatally flawed.

Answer 8

I think you already know the answer. The Dems could not pass a Bill on it's own merits. They drafted a Bill that they were told would get Vetoed if it contained the language that it did, before it was even drafted. Then to throw it out and say "the balls in your court" is pathetic. The Dems are using our Troops as Political Pawns, and that is outrageous.

Answer 9

It probably costs more money to deploy new troops than it does to simply leave troops in the field that are already there.
so if the bill doesn't make it through, the army will have to borrow from itself and keep spending as low as possible until they get a new bill.

Answer 10

to me I read that as Bush already knows in his mind that he won't let the troops come home while he is in office.. I mean.. without funding he's still going to keep them there?.. he is unwilling to budge.. and until he is willing to give a little congress won't give any either.. this being his mess.. he'll have to take the first steps to compromise here.