Or will Bush get a clue, take back his veto, and sign the funding bill?
2007-05-04 07:32:17 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wow. Everyone who writes on here is so intelligent. They all seem to know what is best for our country, which in their opinion, is staying in Iraq? Yeah, so all you who think it's such a fabulous idea, visit your local Army recruiter and do downrange.
And yes, Bush will continue to be stubborn and waste billions upon billions of dollars to kill American soldiers. As long as he is in office, we will be at war.
Oh yeah, and most soldiers will NOT tell you we should stay in Iraq...my dad's Army and he says we should get out.
2007-05-04 07:44:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
No...The troops are funded to July 2007. Even if the funding bill is never passed the Military will continue to find the extra money for the troops after July 2007 by cancelling or scaling back on future weapons development.
2007-05-04 14:41:38 · answer #2 · answered by Archer 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Bush doesn't need to get a clue. Believe it or not he is actually doing what is best for America. My husband is in the Army and you can ask any of them and they will say that it is too soon for them to completely pull out of Iraq. It will just say to the Al-qaida that we are weak and giving up and they will retaliate even harder then anyone could expect. Its not that Bush doesn't want to fund the troops, he just doesn't want to pull out of Iraq and he is at a loss when they are lumped into the same bill. It is hard to be in the Military right now, but they want to be there and they want to do their jobs over there so just support them please.
2007-05-04 14:41:04 · answer #3 · answered by jenblueblonde 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The funding bill contained several other things that Bush could not sign, including a date for withdrawal and an increase to the minimum wage.
Whether you agree with him or not you have to agree he stands behind his principles.
2007-05-04 14:44:28 · answer #4 · answered by Sean 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Are you paying attention to this at all?
It wasn't so much a veto to funding the troops as much as it was veto-ing a bill that told our enemies when we'd be leaving. I'm absolutely baffled as to how a publicized timeline of our retreat is a good idea.
Maybe De La Hoya will start calling his shots before he throws them this weekend too.
2007-05-04 14:38:55 · answer #5 · answered by jdm 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
The Democrat funding bill is bogus. I hear Bush is going to start drug testing recipients of federal tuition assistance. This will open up billions for the military.
2007-05-04 14:40:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Why make a bill that you KNOW will be vetoed? thats like spending a month writing a paper about Chinese immigration when the assigned topic is Affirmative Action history... you know its gonna fail from the beginning... the dems are just wasting time and more money... they complain about how much time and money the war in Iraq is wasting and then they waste more putting together a bill they know will not be signed.
2007-05-04 14:39:12 · answer #7 · answered by Ryan F 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I can only imagine that the democrats put forth a bill for funding with many little conditions on the side.. therefor he vetoed.
2007-05-04 14:37:49 · answer #8 · answered by HiketheWild09 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
It wasn't a funding bill, it was a withdrawl bill with funding attached so people could critisize Bush for vetoing a funding bill.
2007-05-04 14:37:24 · answer #9 · answered by Brian 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Sign a Pork Bill? not hardly, the dems have hamstrung the troops and they know it, my son is one of them! Give them the funding that is needed Dems! The death toll is now on their heads and mine better not be one of them! You can run but you will only die tired!
2007-05-04 14:38:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋