It appears that the Iraq/Afghanistan war spending bill containing a non-binding time line for troop withdrawal will be passed by both the Democratic controlled House and Senate. President Bush has made it very clear that this bill will be vetoed when it gets to his desk. It is also fairly clear that Democrats will not have sufficient votes to override a Presidential veto in either the House or the Senate. So what is the next move?
2007-04-25 11:55:13 · 14 answers · asked by msi_cord 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Both sides do their little pouting, whining, foot stomping nonsense.
Then having made their non existent pathetic point our spineless Democratic Congress will pass a bill Bush can live with, confident they have made their point to their constituents.
2007-04-25 12:01:23 · answer #1 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Congress has a choice between passing an acceptable (if not acceptable to Bush, at least acceptable to a veto-overturning majority of its own membership) funding bill, or taking credit for ending the Iraq war via its Constitutional 'power of the purse.'
Since the latter would require some moral courage, I suspect the former will happen.
2007-04-25 12:03:22 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Defense is funded at $498 billion for 2007. Bush has already ordered the money moved to Iraq. Congress also approved long ago $100 billion and $80 billion to kick in before July.
The current spending bill has other stuff in it that will not be funded. Like pork to make Republicans look good at home.
It is a lie that Democrats are taking bullets from our service members in Iraq.
2007-04-25 12:28:41 · answer #3 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is blaming the Dem's for this spending bill. Since he doesn't have the sack to set a date for withdrawal (which is what the Dem's want). Why don't people realize that his veto is keeping the troops from getting supplies and safety gear?
Bush has his own agenda. He doesn't care what the majority of the population (or his military advisers with actual war experience), want.
2007-04-25 12:04:02 · answer #4 · answered by katydid 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They have to start over. I don't understand why they are going ahead with the withdrawal deadline. They KNOW that Bush will veto it and they KNOW they don't have the votes to over-ride the veto.
At least it keeps amnesty on the back burner. That will probably be their next disaster that they will shove down the throats of Americans that don't want it.
2007-04-25 12:05:36 · answer #5 · answered by JessicaRabbit 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If/whilst Bush vetoes this invoice, it incredibly is ineffective. it incredibly is theoretically conceivable for the abode and Senate to override the veto with a 2/3 majority in the two, yet this can not happen. There are various opportunities as to what occurs next. One is that the abode can in simple terms refuse to introduce any invoice in any respect, meaning the finished protection stress is not funded, not basically the conflict efforts. this can not happen, because of fact it might close down the protection industry, which might quickly consequence the financial gadget of the states of lots of the Democrats that returned this invoice. they might desire to bypass a funds. the subsequent probability is they might attempt this returned, and this time strengthen the quantity of beef to bribe much greater of the abode and Senate to assist the invoice. i think that's what they want to do, and can attempt it, yet I doubt they're going to get away with that. it is going to take too plenty money, and demand a tax strengthen which they gained't get, and finally reason serious injury to the financial gadget by using inflation and better expenditures of activity, and that i doubt that any one vote casting for that time of spending gets re-elected in 08. finally, in the event that they get incredibly desperate, they might do the main suitable factor and bypass a sparkling invoice.
2016-10-30 07:27:27 · answer #6 · answered by duperne 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Dems will probably keep trying to get these bills passed unitl they are forced to try and defund the war up front for everybody to see what they really stand for.
In the meantime they will also be known as the ones that have left the troops without supplies, body armor, weapons or ammunition while they are in harms way. In a conflict they voted for to put them there.
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
2007-04-25 12:03:03 · answer #7 · answered by scottdman2003 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They have to start over with a new Bill. Waste of time and effort and money just to satify the anti-war nuts for polical purposes. They care more about votes then our troops and our country.
2007-04-25 12:00:48 · answer #8 · answered by deezznuts 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh well, it looks like since there is no funding we'll have to bring the troops home sooner than the time table. Or Bush could continue to borrow from eveybody to keep his war going ad infinitum.
2007-04-25 12:12:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Alot of talk - a lot of "bad press" that in the end won't mean anything to a guy who isn't seeking another term - Not much can be done until election time
2007-04-25 12:01:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋