We are either in it to win it or not. American troops will die as a result of this hesitation. It isn't their job to dictate foreign policy. Either fund it or pull out either way I'd support our nation in an effort to save lives. But they must unite either way. If they defund it Bush would have to pull out and do it in a way to save as many lives as possible. If they do fund it they must fund it in a fasion that would make it most likely that we will win.
one way or the other what Congress is doing right now is wrong.
2007-04-16 01:04:30 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If they fund ANYTHING it must be in a way to save American lives and not put them in further danger. EITHER FUND IT OR NOT>
2007-04-16 01:18:37 · update #1
N.Cog---you make a valid point.
2007-04-16 06:33:31 · update #2
Regardless of what the Democrats want they know that if they give the President anything other than what he asked for it will be vetoed, and they know they don't have the votes to override a veto with the slim majorities they have and the fact that most Republicans still back the President. Knowing this they should stop wasting time, which is all they are doing, and fund the war. Defunding the war is also a possibilty, but would most likely political suicide, so they would only use that as a last resort if at all. The funding bills they are submitting are full of pork spending and are wrong to send to begin with. Setting a specific date for withdrawal is also wrong, but they figure if they do it and the President signs it then when it goes wrong they can blame the President for signing it instead of vetoing it. This congress has accomplished very little and have not even submitted some of their so called first 100 hours of legislation to the Senate yet and is not the ethical non-pork spending congress they claimed they would be. They ran on almost nothing, won, and have done pretty much nothing, at least nothing to benefit those that voted for them or the country as a whole. I can't believe that everyone that voted for these people aren't complaining and asking for recall votes.
2007-04-16 02:25:41 · answer #1 · answered by Wilkow Conservative 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There has been plenty of money for this war, it has been totally mismanaged and pissed away on contract companies, cough haliburton. That is what the dems are trying to say by making these bills the way they are. They don't want to not give troops funding that is just stupid, they want to make sure that the amount of money they allow (which is plenty by the way) is spent on the troops for once!
And there is no winning this war, those who believe that are blind, there is no way to win....and what are we winning? Coming in first? A prize? what, tell me what we win! Definitely not the hearts and support of the Iraq people, they hate us, not the support of the rest of the world, they hate us...so what do we exactly win?
2007-04-16 01:53:01 · answer #2 · answered by bs b 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I agree with your last statement. The answer to your first question: neither. Congress should act responsibly and consider the people of the US, first, rather than political careers and political power. In matters of national security they should support the administration, first. If Dems don't agree, they should take their disagreements behind closed doors...explain to the administration what they want and why. Working together is not a crime. "Airing dirty laundry" in the media does a disservice to everyone in the US. Worst case example: Senator Chuck Schumer.
2007-04-16 01:17:17 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
K, first off nobody is going to let the troops go without funding. Not Dems, not libs, not Repubs....no one.
The Dems have said this over and over. There will be no funding issues.
What their bill did was put distance between Dems and the war, and it also puts blame squarely on Bush's shoulders.
I'll say this for the 3rd time in hopes you'll get it: Dems are not about to cut funding to the troops.
2007-04-16 01:12:48 · answer #4 · answered by Josh 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
incorrect. Bush can Veto the bill. Democrats want to punish Republicans for his or her lack of checks and balances by technique of forcing Bush to Veto Iraq warfare charges and stress Republicans on the record so the customary public can punish them on the polls for no longer following the orders of their elements/bosses- the voters.
2016-12-04 03:03:18 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe the "opposition" party will rise to the occasion and embrace fundamental change, though it has done so in only two brief shining moments in its own history. Maybe the world community, beyond minor sniping, will sanction the US as a pariah state and force change upon us. Maybe the people themselves will rise up and demand change. If only they would disapprove in the way Mussolini’s people did. Maybe Karl Rove really will be frog-marched out of the White House. There are a million ways in which this house of greasy, blood-stained cards could come crashing down. Nothing would make me happier.
2007-04-16 01:07:57 · answer #6 · answered by dstr 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Maybe they don't trust Bush to pull out in a way to save as many lives as possible; maybe they fear that he would put soldiers at risk and try to blame those who pulled the funds .
2007-04-16 01:08:53 · answer #7 · answered by ash 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If they had any cojones they would just try to defund it...but they are afraid of the reprecussions from the outraged American voters.
2007-04-16 01:11:25 · answer #8 · answered by dr_methanegasman 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your premise this war is winnable is flawed. We are in there to sustain a no win scenereo for political reasons. If you REALLY supported the military, you would end this fiasco asap. Defuding the war is an option. I do support the Democrats and their actions for now. Its a beginning.
2007-04-16 01:10:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋