2007-07-15 15:31:41 · 15 answers · asked by Mike3st 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Of course George W. Bush can reject Republican demands for troop withdrawal. Bush is lame duck, so he's not getting elected again he's staying the course, because if he doesn't... the democrats and those republicans will have a little nut cutting session... and we're talking impeachment, perhaps war crime trials here.
Those Republicans are fighting for their political lives, how ever. By standing up to Bush they have said no to the war, so they will get the support they need. Its not Congress's decision to make about troop withdrawal its Bush's ultimately. the Democrats have said they will not push to cut funding because that would endanger people's lives in the military. Whether they stick to that remains to be seen... I would say they would cut funding cause they have to get tough sometime, but its really up in the air right now.
Ritefielder, what does "victory" mean? What does "win this thing" mean... who makes that choice? Are you just quoting the president because you are a half wit and a hack or do you really know what that means?
Does that mean that there will be no fighting in the Middle East for the first time in the entire history of mankind? Does that mean troop withdrawal? Does that mean over throw Saddam? Does that mean Occupy Iraq? Does that mean the current government functions as a stable sovereign country even though there is a DEEP divide between the three factions of Iraqis? ...divide between Persians and Arabs? ....divide between Red and Blue in America? ...divide between terrorists and citizens? Does that mean that Americans are gonna kill everyone until they behave? I was just wondering if you know what you mean by that.
Sorry I got carried away there.. this is supposed to be an answer.
2007-07-15 17:24:46 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Congress has only funded the war for a few more months. If they refuse to continue funding beyond that point, Bush could move some funds around, but he'd run out of money pretty quick. But so far Congress has not shown a willingness to push that hard. Congressmembers, especially Republicans, are in a tough spot. It's clear that most Americans want us out of Iraq, and anyone who doesn't get with the program risks losing their seat, as happened to lots of them in the last election. But they also don't want to look weak on defense or soft on terrorism.
So you'll probably see more of the same. Speeches and posturing calling for an end to the war, but little real action. Looks like it will be up to the next president.
2007-07-15 16:27:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
All Congress need do is withdraw his authority to make war in the middle east. Since they provided approval to go to war they can rescind that approval just as well. If he fails to respond accordingly then he must be impeached for failing to cooperate with the other two branches of the federal government. This would be the most serious transgression that any chief executive could possibly make. As it stands now the republican party is finished. All that remains is for the next group facing reelection to be defeated and the party will collapse!
2007-07-16 16:37:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes.
He went all in, to use a poker term, and he's waiting on the river card, due in September. Lots of humiliation is at stake. It will be interesting times.
OK so.. Bush has pushed the Republican party so far to the right that he has to bet this one, if he wins, the Democrats are done, and the Republicans can run another fascist... and continue running right with their base.... If he loses then the Republicans can live another day, (they have a massive chip lead) and run a right slanting moderate, a "compassionate conservative" like Bush was when he ran in 2000 and reclaim their base... its win win .. or almost win win...
Its all about power with these guys, not victory.... just like in 1984 the book... maybe the year too.. Reagan was re elected in 84 and they ran right...
2007-07-15 16:44:40 · answer #4 · answered by Dude 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Frankly, i do no longer think of Bush supplies a hoot approximately Iraq. What he did care approximately became a dictator who had sole administration over an huge wealth of organic supplies..i.e.OIL. usa's thirst for this power source is dire in protecting our united states wealthy and in essence on top of issues of the international. protection is power. Iraq's political feat of turning into democratic is an excuse for the Bush empire to maintain us in Iraq and subsequently have get entry to to that oil wealth. Democracy has been stress fed to this united states merely like a dictatorship became...
2016-10-03 21:44:57 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mike,
He can - and he will. He is the Commander-in-Chief, there is little that can be done. Congress cuts off the funding and then what happens? That won't happen. It will take a year or so to get the troops out of there and will require deep security to protect them when they do leave. There is no quick solution.
2007-07-15 15:37:06 · answer #6 · answered by Pete W 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush believes himself to be King George, not accountable to the people, the Congress or the world's society. As Cheney and Rove continue to order him to "stay the course", he will. This war is all about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING, and Cheney and associates haven't sucked every dime out of it they can - yet. -RKO- 07/15/07
2007-07-15 16:38:26 · answer #7 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not much longer. Congress inflicted defeat on us in Nam (something the enemy was not able to do); now the slimy misrepresentatives of the land of the flee-ers and the home of the craven seek complete defeat and humiliation of our long suffering military in Iraq as well. When they succeed and the terror starts up in the streets of America, we can all hold them responsible as well as our sadly obsessed president.
What a putrid government we have inflicted on ourselves!
2007-07-15 16:31:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
This lame duck president will listen only to Cheney and Rove. Even his own party seems to ignore Bush.
2007-07-16 02:18:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
I am all for troop withdrawal but we must complete the job first. I want the soldiers home. I have friends that are fighting in Iraq now, and I am very afraid for their lives, but we can't just leave the Iraqis there to die.
We are winning this war:
Civilian deaths are down 36%
There have been less and less terrorist attacks since the troop surge
We have been detaining and killing terrorists by the day
We are winning this war and we will win this war...no doubt about it.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
2007-07-15 15:39:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonnnn24424 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋