if the congress dosent give bush the money he'll keep our troops in iraq longer and the blame it on congress

Question

for not giving him the funds, who do you blame? and why? and do you feel this is a snake like tactic conscidering the troops havent been coming home anyways when scheduled even when they had all of the money they needed, that my point now i'd like to hear your's cheers ,

please dont comment if you have no clue about the press conferance bush had the other day and what i'm talking about as i'm sick of people who just wildly guess at stuff with no clue to the subject at hand thanks!

ok since no one know what i'm talking about:


it was said yesterday if congress refuses funding for the iraq war which would cuase a normal president to pull out as there would be no funding for it but instead he's saying he's just going to rebuget as in keep the troops that are already over there, there for lnoger and ship the ones we have in tranning sooner and he's just goning to rebuget the miltary and yadha yadha yadha, and he says now that the american people should blam congress for the troops being over there longer than expected and with less eqpuiment than needed, is this snake like becuase he's going aginst congress tyhe american people and logic and then blaming teh results on congress when it is he who is hell bent to contunie this war no matter what the cost?

Answer 1

If Bush doesn’t want the funding cut then he should sign the supplemental funding bill when he gets it. Congress is giving him the money. The withdrawal dates are reasonable but if he wants to veto the bill and thereby deprive the troops of funding, then he should go ahead and do it.

Answer 2

Congress and the president are on the opposite sides of the discussion regarding Iraq with no solution in site.

I feel the blame lies with the president for the following reasons:

1) He pre-emptively went into Iraq under questionable motives that destroyed many alliances we had gained after 9/11.
2) Osama Bin Ladan - the murderer of over 3,000 people on United States soil is still free because of the strain Iraq has put on our military.
3) Going into Iraq cheap and fast was a disasterous military plan and has triggered a civil war. All he had to do was call his dad to confirm why he pulled out of Iraq short of Baghdad in the first Gulf War.
4) Billions of U.S. tax dollars unaccounted for in Iraq and when the auditors questioned it, they were fired.
5) Many questionable military contracts awarded to the well connected.
6) The majority of Americans want our troops out of Iraq.
7) The only military solution in Iraq is to pull out or drastically increase the military presence which could only be accomplished through a draft. The American people will not support a draft.

I believe the president has acted in the interest of himself and his party and not the American people. Impeachment should be strongly considered.

Answer 3

The democrats have every right to block the funding. Now that they are the legislative majority they have the right to attempt to fight this war on their terms. If M. Le President Enfant Terrible can't handle that, he will veto the bill, eliminate ALL funding for the troops and get more Americans hurt just to have his merry war.

I'm sick of his garbage and it's time he realized he's the new LBJ and he's sunk. It's time to be in Iraq to fight terrorists, and not this damn sectarian war that we didn't start. If all the Iraquis want to do with their freedom is kill each other, then let's deal with Al Qaeda and the refugees, and start letting soldiers come home and rest before Iran does something stupid and executes those sailors and starts WWIII.

Answer 4

There will not be any resolution on it. Libs will say Bush's fault , cons will say Congress's fault.

I would have changed the bill by taking away billions from unneeded high tech / high price projects to realign this money for the war. This would have been a great idea!!!

After all, US does not need next generation weapons systems that urgently - we do not have a formidable opponent. AlQuida does not have a fighter jet that we can not shoot down if you know what I mean.

No state is compatible to US military capability and a new nuclear weapon is pointless against alQuida.

Answer 5

What happened to the Bushies claim that the Iraq War wouldn't last six months and would pay for itself?

I guess it is up there with all the other lies about WMDs, democracy in Iraq and Iraqi oil for Iraqi people, it is all lies. The Downing Street memo proved that Bush fixed the facts around his determination to invade Iraq. How long do we have to stay wasting American and Iraqi blood and treasure? HOW LONG??? Bush wants to stay until his Big Oil masters can take as much of their profits as possible.

Answer 6

The answer of forcing troops to stay longer comes down to this. As troops are cycled out, new units come in to replace them. Before these new units leave, they have to have extra training, repair or replace current equipment, and in some cases add new equipment (such as armored humvees).

All of these things cost money. If the funding bills aren't passed, the military is forced to act under previous budget constraints. One of the options to curb spending under this situation is to use units that are already trained and equipped. Unfortunately that would mean that units that are already in Iraq, and those that have recently returned would be the least expensive option. No one likes it, but it's what would have to be done.

Answer 7

if the congress does decided not to have the troops over there bush can still keep them there for 90 days still getting funds there is no one else to blame really besides the whole govt branch in my opinion bush should pull his head out his *** and stop trying to go to another country telling them what to do or have

Answer 8

I believe that Bush is telling them that he and not them control our military actions and that is his right as per our Constitution. He intends to finish what was started even if the congress doesn't have the backbone for it. I also believe that Bush knows they will not call his bluff on this issue because it would be political suicide for all who cut funding if Bush does as he says he will. If they cut funding and our troops start coming out and Bush does give in it will still be political suicide for the ones who chose to cut funding because as our troops start coming home the ones who are not in the first wave will suffer greater attacks and higher death tolls. It happened in Cambodia and it will happen in Iraq if the job is not completed before troops start to come home.

Answer 9

Congress gave Bush every penny he asked for, It's up to Bush whether the troops receive it or not.

Answer 10

First of all, the timetable for withdraw is NON-BINDING, so its not an issue of making our troops leave. Its an issue of admitting his war was a stupid waste of money and lives to accomplish nothing but make his buddies richer.