knew would get vetoed it shows that they at least attempted to fund the war. If no funding bill gets passed doesnt the war HAVE t to end? BRILLIANT. I love the Democrats..let's get out of Iraq and start rebuilding America.
2007-05-10 11:13:05 · 14 answers · asked by the man 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Why should we feel sorry about cutting off funding after we've already given 400 BILLION DOLLARS and the military has a 500 Billion dollar annual defense budget anyways. Let's put it this way. Let's say you lended a friend 10,000 dollars already..he went and spent all of the money in Vegas and now he says he just wants 1000 more dollars to blow away. Would you feel guilty for NOT giving your friend another grand? I wouldnt.
2007-05-11 05:11:40 · update #1
Yes. No funding equals no war. It might not end neatly, but it'd end. De-funding the war is an option now that the Democrats control Congress, but it's one they're reluctant to use, because it would put the 'loss' of the war squarely on thier shoulders. Bush and the Reps could claim that they'd've won the war but for those cowardly Dems cutting the funding, and that could hurt Dems in '08.
2007-05-10 11:26:01 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Of course it was. But they didn't have guts enough to just defund it outright. They loaded up the bill with B.S. so that the President would veto it(like he said he would)and they could say "Look at what he did. We tried to give the troops the funds they needed, but HE vetoed it. What an EVIL man!" All they are doing is playing politics so they can "Take back the white house". They are fighting a war against Republicans instead of our REAL enemies. They aren't brilliant. They are despicable. And we don't need to get out of Iraq to rebuild America. We need Congress to do ITS job(not the Presidents) and pass the Fair Tax so we can keep our economy strong in this changing world.
To Terry:
It is not irresponsible for the President to veto this bill. HE is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, not Congress and not the people. Do you really believe it is a good idea to run a war based on popular opinion? The election in November was for Congressman not the President, and as I already pointed out HE is the Commander in Chief.
Lastly I don't know what irresponsible person has children in Iraq. There are, though, many full grown ADULT men and women who chose to join the ARMED forces and have been trained to go into harm's way so that our children, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, friends etc. don't end up in harm's way here at home. Let them do what they were trained to do!
2007-05-10 11:32:26 · answer #2 · answered by srdongato2 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is how the Vietnam and Korean wars finally ended - Congress attached conditions to funding bills. In the same way, the Dems have required that conditions attach to funding of this war.
It is irresponsible of the President to reject a perfectly valid funding bill because he doesn't like the conditions. The fact is the Congress is entitled under the constitution to do this. 70% of the US population want our children out of harms way - most accept that whatever they thought originally about the war, it was in fact an expensive (in terms of lives and money) mistake and must be ended.
The President today FINALLY signalled he is willing to accept conditions in order to continue funding.
The Dems would be insane to leave our troops without funding and risk further deaths - at the same time they have to force an end to the war, because that was the mandate the American people gave them in November. It would be suicide for any party to ignore the will of the people. We THE PEOPLE rule America, not the Democrat or the Republican party.
2007-05-10 11:23:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think this is one of those topics it's so hard to say if there is a "right" thing to do because there are so many angles. I'm not taking anyone's side because if I said cut off funding to troops I would feel guily we aren't giving our fellow Americans overseas money, but if I agreed with keeping troops there I would also feel bad because I wouldn't like it if my brother was still in the marines and was over there fighting.
2007-05-10 11:20:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is the short sightedness that lost the Vietnam war.
and congress killed millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians by pulling out their funding.
is that what you call a good idea. because if it is i hope everyone in your life abandons you.
2007-05-10 11:35:57 · answer #5 · answered by tigerbarr1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush vetoes everything the public wants proving he is a traitor.
2007-05-10 11:20:37 · answer #6 · answered by jeb black 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the war wont end if it doesn't get funded... they will just have to live w/ what they already have... capture ammo from the enemy... live off the land so to speak... of course that will leave them less ready to fight and probably lead to more deaths... thanks Congress...
2007-05-10 11:18:29 · answer #7 · answered by goodtimefriend 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
funny, but the dems voted for the war also.
2007-05-10 12:30:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
why don't YOU start rebuilding America? we have troops in Iraq and we need to give them the funding to do their jobs! NOW!
2007-05-10 11:16:29 · answer #9 · answered by kapute2 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
THIS isnt a war
its murdering for oil and profit using fools who are so patriotic they cant see the EVIL LIES.
leave these people alone.
2007-05-10 11:21:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋