Even though he disagrees with establishing a date for withdrawl, isn't he cutting the legs out from under our troops while ignoring the will of the majority? If the U.S. is a true republic, isn't he morally obligated to go along with the majority in congress?
2007-05-02 03:11:46 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
#1 - IF it was a Military spending bill, why was there Pork in there about Citrus Crops, and Spinach?
#2 - The Constitution (a legally binding contract between the citizens and the government) empowers him to use the Veto.
#3 - how can it be a Moral Obligation IF the president is authorized to have that power by the people.
#4 - IF there is a true congressional majority, then they can override the veto - yet another power due to the Constitution (a legally binding contract between the citizens and the government).
This system was set up with Checks and Balances - hence a Democratic Republic (which BTW is NOT a Democracy).
IF Congress was serious about this "Showdown" then why not send a bill with dates and no Pork.? Congress cant even do business without bribing each other with Pork Spending.
2007-05-02 03:22:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
President Bush could veto the democrat's bill... even
with a majority, the democrats couldn't overide the veto..
...and no, President Bush is obligated to do what HE thinks is right...he is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States...
2007-05-09 16:18:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
N O!! The Congress of the Unted States of America ARE NOT authorized to tell the Generals how to run military operations or set a time line on when to end the war or what missions they are on
and President George W. Bush is absolutely NOT
morally obligated to go along with Congress. These "people" are undermining the troops and
are aiding and abetting the enemy which is Al Qa'ida and the radical islamo-fascist terrorists by
putting in a artifical withdrawal date or better known as a surrender date. REMEMBER 9/11/01
WE WILL NEVER FORGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-05-02 03:24:44 · answer #3 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Congress has a decision between passing a suitable (if not perfect to Bush, a minimum of perfect to a veto-overturning majority of its very own club) investment invoice, or taking credit for ending the Iraq conflict by using way of its Constitutional 'power of the handbag.' through fact the latter could require some ethical braveness, i think the former will take place.
2016-10-14 08:32:18 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not Bush who cutt off the legs, it is Congress. They knew it was going to be vetoed. And no he is not morrally obligated to go along with the majority in congress. They do not necessarily represent what the people want or what is best for this country.
2007-05-08 13:48:40 · answer #5 · answered by TAT 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I guess it is all on principle.
A bit ago, the Republicans were spouting that the Democrats didn't support our troops because they were putting the deadline in the bill even though they were approving the money - matter of fact, more than was asked for.
I think this really shows how much Bush is a failure at being President - he should be listening to the voters. A majority of voters want the troops to come home. I think that Bush should be making every effort to bring them home. He isn't doing that. What that tells me is that he has put his interests ahead of the countries. THAT is not a true elected official (well, in the spirit of the elected offical).
2007-05-02 03:22:33 · answer #6 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
you know i always thought that the president was the voice of the people obviously that is not the case. It's starting to look like a dictatorship to me.
I'm sorry but he is morally obligated to listen to the majority isn't that what democracy is about???????? Isn't that what we are trying to do in Iraq????????
And for all of you that haven't been updated with the news Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 Sadaam was not responsible for 9/11 IT WAS BIN LADEN REMEMBER THE GUY WE ARE NOT EVEN LOOKING FOR. IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 THE PRESIDENT HAS NOW ADMITTED TO THIS I WILL SAY IT AGAIN IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE ARE STILL AT LARGE AND WHILE WE ARE WASTING TIME IN IRAQ THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 ARE LIVING THEIR DAILY LIVES WITH THEIR LOVED ONES.
2007-05-09 03:42:03 · answer #7 · answered by Y 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Congress is the group selling out our military. They knew Bush would veto the bill.
You are also confused about the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. Bush knows this bill is flawed, and he did the right thing to veto it. It was purely a political move, and it will come back to hurt the democrats.
2007-05-02 03:16:26 · answer #8 · answered by jh 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No, he is obligated to do what is best for the country. And why do we need to be spending more money on a war that we shouldn't even be fighting. We need to learn to fight our own battles and not everyone elses. Yeah, Saddam is dead..but where is Osama?
2007-05-05 21:56:49 · answer #9 · answered by ~~*Paradise Dreams*~~ 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The deal is cash is cash.
Sorry no strings attach to the monkey's tail in planet of apes.
2007-05-02 04:41:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋