We've all seen the news, congress approves a bill with a timetable included, Bush vetoes it. Bush wants an open-ended cash flow, and congress wants an idea of when this will all come to a close. If congress is so determined why don't they just start cutting funding for the war? What will this all result in?
(Serious answers please)
2007-05-02 05:24:29 · 10 answers · asked by Demosthenes 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Some Democrats in congress do want to completely cut off funding. However, the Democrats in power are trying not to take such a strong position, I think because they fear that the public will see them as not supporting the troops. The president and right wing pundits will surely portray the Democrats as not supporting the troops.
I think it's really unfortunate that this war is a lose-lose situation. If we stay, more soldiers get killed, and the insurgent groups have more political ammo to get people on their side. If we leave, the country will spiral into an all out civil war.
2007-05-02 05:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by jellybeanchick 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It will result in Bush vetoing that bill as well. Also, that would hurt their image and endanger the soldiers in Iraq even more. The compromise would be the most likely way to get a bill passed, short of giving Bush every thing he wants and Congress getting nothing in return.
2007-05-02 05:38:06 · answer #2 · answered by juddthestud1987 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The deal is there are men and women over there that are vulnerable to attack. Cutting funding would mean they wouldn't get paid, they are supporting families here in the states just like you do. Plus if the equipment doesn't have any parts they can't defend themselves. You just can't pull a few thousand troops out of a country in 24 hours, it cannot be feasibly done without losing millions of dollars of equipment and could also cost lives!
2007-05-02 05:35:11 · answer #3 · answered by Tapestry6 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The thing that makes me really mad is that liberals in congress could possibly add some different perspectives to the whole debate on terrorism and how to stop this horrible problem. But instead, they choose to politicize it all in hopes of scoring points in the '08 elections.
It makes me think they only care about their own power, and could care less about my family's safety against terrorists who want to destroy us. Obviously, they are banking on the fact that Bush will veto this insanity and that our troops will be taken care of. It is sick. If we get attacked again, I hold them accountable (but, since I live in a major city, maybe I won't be alive to do so).
2007-05-02 05:39:35 · answer #4 · answered by Apachecat 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they won't cut funding and the main reason is they do not want to own this war. the '08 elections are coming up and they want to say " we tried but bad ole bush vetoed it'. they had to bribe most everyone who voted for it and if they really wanted to end it they could over ride bush's veto but they don't have enough votes. they are playing politics with our military. they are out to hurt the bush whitehouse no matter the colateral damage. the dems should be ashamed. if they had worked more with the whitehouse a bill would have passed. but they decided to try and make the president look bad to prove a point. what it is i do not know. they seem to forget that america did not vote for them in '06, america voted against the republicans. they just happen to be there.
2007-05-02 05:37:39 · answer #5 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It is political suicide for the Dems if they cut funding. The repubs are "all-in" and struggling with this. The damage is done to the Repubs. If the Dems cut funding, they will be seen as being against the troops, voting for "failure". We all know better.
2007-05-02 05:35:55 · answer #6 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because its all a political game. They are pandering to the polls. The polls report that Americans are tired of the war - so the dems are pro pulling out.
If the media was pro the war; it would be interesting to see if the democrats would be supporting the war.
2007-05-02 06:42:19 · answer #7 · answered by shadow 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They would prefer to WIN the upcoming election. Cutting our military off like that would kill a LOT of soldiers and get them kicked out of Washington forever. And they know it. That's why during their Mutual Masturbation Session [the democratic debates] they were all standing around with their thumbs in their mouths when confronted on this issue by what's-his-name.
2007-05-02 06:00:45 · answer #8 · answered by Michelle C 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cause Bush would try to figure a way to keep them over there and without any funding even more would get killed in the process. Thats just my assumption now and I could be wrong.
2007-05-02 05:42:21 · answer #9 · answered by goodins2 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because the Dem's have a greater sense of responsibility then the Republican mouth pieces on talk radio give them credit for.
2007-05-02 05:46:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋