If Bush persists with veto do you feel Congress should cut off the funding if they have to?

Question

They ran on the basis of stopping this war.
If they have to cut funding to accomplish this should they then?

ScottB & others: So Bush should bring them home and there would be no issue of emergency funding!
Since the beginning the soldiers have not had everything they needed from adequate body armor to the insufficient number of troops there to begin with!
How many more Generals do we need to go through before one gets the job done?
Even this one has said that military alone will not stop this insurgency!

Answer 1

They are the ones who still have to answer to the public, Bush isn't running again.

Bush has refused to listen to anybody who has disagreed with any aspect of his agenda. He walked away from the UN Security Council because they wouldn't authorize his invasion of Iraq; he appointed fools who made the situation in Iraq worse, then gave them medals; he appointed a nonpartisan blue-ribbon panel on Iraq that took its time to reach 73 unanimous conclusions and then utterly ignored its recommendations; and now he refuses to bargain in good faith with the representatives the American people sent in 2006 to fix the shambles he's made, choosing to persist in the autocratic style whose time is clearly past.

If they have to vote to rescind their authorization to use force in Iraq, they should do so. Denying this "emergency" funding doesn't prevent Bush from reallocating other monies to fund his war. He'd try to blame it on the Congress, of course, but you're right--we sent them there to rein him in, and they need to figure out a way to do it.

Answer 2

Congress needs to (financially) support our troops, to do anything else is cowardly. You cannot use our troops as bargaining chips in a national game of poker. I was opposed to the Bush war on Iraq back in June of 2000. However, now that we are here we have to stay here. When young people figure out that the only way not to fight this war is to not serve in the Armed Services, the warmongers will have no choice but to re-institute the draft. The Bush twins can then go to Alabama and help friends get elected to political offices, just like their father did in the Vietnam War. But by then, Junior will be retired and under Secret Service protection for the rest of his life.

Answer 3

Bush only wants conflict. The veto is his way of saying my way or the highway.

Congress would like a chance to over ride a veto.

Plus both sides are lying about what the bill actually says. Read it. There is no demand for a 100% pull out. The Army will be in Iraq forever.

In a few years soldiers will be bringing their Iraqi wife's home to meet momma. A few more and the local Iraqi governors will be crying that the base needs to hire more local labor.

It will be like Germany people said all manor of bad things about the German girls that married soldiers. Now they are Grandmothers with 2nd generation kids in the Army fighting in Iraq.

Answer 4

No, Bush has performed this out okay. (i'm no longer a Bush fan) by potential of vetoing the invoice he has positioned the democrats able the place the republicans can say that the democrats are leaving our troops with out the flaws they could win the conflict. this could help come election time. confident the american human beings have mentioned we could like our boys *and girls* dwelling house from Iraq however the republicans will positioned a spin in this. It what politicians do. it fairly is a loose loose challenge.

Answer 5

I agree with you, but i don't know if cutting funding will help. It might just get more of our men killed, because Bush clearly doesn't care about them, and he and his puppet masters will not give up this lucrative (for them) war without a fight. They intended from the very beginning for this war to be permanent!

Answer 6

Bush's take no prisoners style of governing will leave the Democrats with no choice. Bush will have to bring the troops home; he can't leave them there without adequate funding.

Answer 7

Unfortunately, they cannot just cut it off. The President must always be given a platform to negotiate and/or compromise. They can however, continue to negotiate terms for funding until 2008! They can just paper him until his terms ends.

This is a colossal waste of time and money.

However, Since Haliburton is moving to Dubai- there is a possibility for troop support via private funding. I am not quite sure of the entire logistics- but Bush will find a way.

Don't worry right-wingers- the body count will continue.

It is so obvious that if we left Iraq- which is their country and their wishes- the dying body count for our soldiers would naturally be greatly diminished.

Answer 8

Yes. The definition of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting different results. We're in year five of a "war" that isn't working and was waged under false terms to begin with. Not one American should have die for this unjust cause.

It's time to stop the insanity

Answer 9

Bush wants to veto because he no longer has his 'rubber-stamping' Congress. He doesn't want to play by the rules, so now he has to play the 'obstructionist' President--in a bid to get what he wants.

He's nothing more than a spoiled brat who's gotten his way for far too long.

Answer 10

Congress authorized this war and it is in our power to bring it to a close. More importantly, we have not just the power but the responsibility to end a war that is draining vital national security resources in pursuit of a goal that cannot be achieved militarily.

Senator Russ Feingold