Simple Yes or No question: could the Democratic Congress stop the war right now if it wanted to?

Question

Simply by refusing to authorize any more money?

Bush can only veto something Congress passes, and Republicans can only filibuster something the Democrats want to pass.

No Republican can stop the Democrats from NOT funding the war.

Elway - they don't need to pass a bill to cut off funding. They need a bill to authorize funding, because it runs out from time to time.

Answer 1

Yes. It can. And, it has done just that before during the Viet Nam war. They don't need to send it to Bush for approval either to do this. The Democratic party needs to grow a pair of balls to the GOP fascists and say enough is enough. Kucinich is right about this.
One begins to wonder if the Democratic elite in that party are on the same side as the GOP. They're just a softer form of them. I agree with your former answer in another Yahoo question posting and that is Go RALPH 2008!

The irony to this situation is that the White House is now funding Sunni jihadists linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq and Lebanon to fight the Shiite and Hezbollah. It's still unknown if it is advertant funding or inadvertant, either way they are getting funded by our military and white house along with the Saudis helping fund them. I wish they would have learned their lesson with Afghanistan and funding the Muhajadeen during the Soviet war. Christ, our leaders are not only greedy imperialists but they are morons as well.

Answer 2

The quandary for Democrats is that if they don't pass a funding bill, then Bush won't have the funds needed to bring the troops home. They can't just pick up and split on the cheap. If they specifically pass an appropriations bill to bring the troops home, that might work, but I doubt that Bush would obey Congress and end the war. It's a difficult situation, mainly because the American people are so easily fooled by this administration. Bush will point an accusing finger at Congress for leaving the troops stranded in the deserts of Iraq. If they pass a funding bill to bring the troops home, the Pentagon will pretend that it's a logistical nightmare, that the withdrawal will take at least a year, and that more money is needed to feed and care for the troops in the meantime. In reality, nothing will actually change. We're stuck with this war until after the elections. If a Republican wins, we'll be there through 2013.

In direct answer to your question; yes, they could stop this nonsense by sitting on their hands. I believe Barack and Hillary can explain to the people why this was their only option to end the war.

Answer 3

no simple answer to this ....like many things in life there are consequences to actions.
If the democratic congress were to cut off funding for the troops it would leave the men and women on the front lines without resources,these men and women are serving their country and are heroes for doing so nobody with any sense wants the troops put in an even worse position then they already are in. That is why I want them home.
The republicans especially the Bush administration would love for the dems to cut the funding for this reason. It would give them a way out of the mess they have caused and now have us in. They will say "we could have won if only the dems had supported our troops but they forced us to leave early" At this point they have given Bush everything he has asked for and yet we are still failing miserably. It is up to Bush to figure out how to get us out of there and for the American people to see how they were led like sheep to slaughter into this abomintation of a war. Maybe then the people of this country will learn the lesson I thought they learned in Vietnam that war is a last resort and is not to entered into without just cause and only after every diplomatic measure has been tried and failed and there is a true threat to our nation.

Answer 4

No, they cannot. They have a very slight majority, and any bill cutting off funding would be vetoed by Bush. They can't just refuse to craft a new bill, they will have to provide for money for bringing the troops home, so a new bill is unavoidable. There are many Republicans speaking out against him, but they don't yet have the stones to walk the walk and vote with the Democrats to do something about it. So an override wouldn't be possible.

EDIT: Right, I know that. The funding runs out and they have to either approve funding to continue the war or approve funding to bring home the troops. It will take a boatload of money to bring them home, same as it took to get them there, that's all I'm saying.

Answer 5

It probably could, but that would leave far too many loose ends that couldn't be resolved. Realistically, the razor thin plurality the democrats have really wouldn't be enough to get a vote like that. Congress is more or less screwed on ending this war...only Bush could end it and he won't. After he's gone there might be a slim hope of putting a stop to this nightmare....don't count on it!

Answer 6

No. Mainly because if we were to end all hostilities in the next minute, we would face up to over a year to pull our troops out. We have billions of tons of equipment, all of which have to be decontaminated to US agriculture standards (To ensure we don't bring in germs that kill off chickens or whatever) and whatever we can't take with us will have to be destroyed. We can't just leave the equipment for our enemies to have. They seem to be putting up a pretty good fight with the inordinate amount of explosives and munitions that were left unguarded by us when we invaded. Also, as we are leaving, we both know that our troops will get shot at, not have roses thrown at them. They will probably have to fight their way out of Iraq. Basically, it will take an act of congress to end the war, and when they do end, it will have to be slowly. I want nothing more then to bring our people home, just not at the expense of even more of their lives.

Answer 7

Yes.
All spending bills must originate in Congress. Those above who mention the presidential veto don't understand how the legislative process works. The bill never gets to the president's desk unless it passes both houses of Congress first. Without a majority, the bill doesn't pass. Nothing to veto, nothing to filibuster.

The president has no power to appropriate money on his own. He could shuffle money around from other areas that have already been appropriated, but eventually the money would run out. No new spending bill = no more war.

Answer 8

Yes.

Stop letting war funding bills come to the table. Very simple. If no funds go to Bush to sign, he can't get money, and he can't squeeze blood from a rock, either.

Answer 9

Yes, they could.

Here's why: no funding requires no bill, and only simple majority. Bush cannot veto a bill that doesn't exist. Republicans also cannot filibuster a bill that doesn't exist.

Notyou311 is indeed incorrect.

Answer 10

It would take them a few months, but yes, if they really wanted to, if they really wanted to end the carnage and destruction, they could.

And they could even do more than cutting off funding. Have a look at these videos here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHJqyHCP284

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC4-Gz-q9lc