Should Congress say no if Bush requests another $50 billion for the war in Iraq?

Question

That's BILLION with a B...

Answer 1

Dem hypocrites! Vote to send our soldiers to fight, then withhold the means for them to be successful.

That's Hypocrite, with an "H".

Answer 2

The only good thing about them saying no, is that when another Terrorist attack occurs, we know who to blame. They want to always point the finger at Bush, but if they stop funding the fight and our troops leave, the attacks will follow us here as soon as they finish the slaughter there.

When Nam fell, 1.7 million people in Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam disappeared from the face of the earth. You tell me where they went and then, tell what will happen in Iraq should we leave.

Next question, do you want the attack in your city?? You run a good chance of that if you live in a major city so, could be very personnel when family members are dead from an attack.

We need to get real and realize the world is a cruel place and their are people out there who hate us, only because we are not of their religion. Go figure.

Before you point your finger too much, ask yourself this question:

Having been given the same information as President Bush had, Congress voted to go to war. NOW, they all want to say something different and separate themselves from their choice. They made a decision based on what information they and the President had.

I Love the armchair quarter backs that have no spine, no guts and no morals than to want to duck and run like we did in Nam. We lost of 54,000 people over there and for what???? So that Congress could try and run the war from Capitol Hill. It didn’t work then and won’t work now.


Semper Fi

Answer 3

Yes! Not only should they, they will! Most of the American public doesn't back this bogus conflict, and will not hold it against Congress for denying Bush and Company another feeding frenzy at the public treasury. Despite what some people here may say, it is not political suicide. Congress enjoys little public support right now, but I daresay it is not because they oppose Bush. It is because they haven't opposed him enough. The public put the Democrats in charge of Congress to be more confrontational, more "in your face" if you will with Der Fuhrer, not less so, and also to tell him exactly what they think of him, his policies, and his tactics. Thus far they have far too cordial to the country hick from Connecticut who masquerades as a Texan. But come September we will see some major fireworks and some major confrontations with Bush and Company. Things are about to get very ugly for Mr. Bush and he may well wish he never thought of presuming he had what it takes to be president of the United States.

Answer 4

I'm sure some would be delighted if the Democrat-led Congress were to deny funding for the war, leading to a disasterous, 'retreat' and 'loss' amid much hand-wringing over the 'surrender' by pro-war politicians.

Those who would be delighted would be, of course, the most divorced-from-reality peaceniks of the Democrat's 'base,' and, secretly, prettymuch all the Republicans, since they'd be out of Iraq without having to 'give up,' /and/ could blame Democrats for the disasterous pull-out for years to come.

Answer 5

Shouldn't you ask yourself why congress gave in so easily to Bush and let him veto their decision to stop him having any more funds for the war? Also why it hasn't been mentioned since? There was a huge commotion about pulling the troops out and no more funds. Then Bush says veto and no more. Why? Someone's playing games with you people. Ooooooooooooooooooooooone day........you will get it.

Answer 6

But here's what happens. Let several GI's get killed and the cause being they didn;t have equipment to protect them, that was unavailable because congress cut off funding.
There are enouigh people FOR the troops that would blame congress, and, ohmigosh, Congress having to take respopnsibility for something?
Not in our lifetimes!

Answer 7

of course, it does not choose all and sundry to forget 9/eleven. Motivation for this reason bear relevantly as mere catalyst in the direction of exterior aspiration. $50 Billion further? Ha! possibly a extra advantageous question, does congress own any extra effective perception right this moment? I recommend a minimum of: Anti-LGBT Lobbyng: $0.00 investment Operation attack on Iraq (or in spite of the incontrovertible fact that recognised): $0.00 faith-based Charity classes: $0.00 further (extra) tutorial funds: $0.00 Reparations to Descendants of Former Slaves: $0.00 *** Why $0.00 faith-based charity classes? church homes have not got any company with their grasping palms on federal monies. *** Why $0.00 further investment of training? look into all they have, extra money spent than ever earlier, and weigh effects! ------------------------- further: "GOD Bless the rustic". Why the insult, by way of fact somebody disagrees? Do you extremely have faith the operations in Iraq are expressly anti-terrorist? "a man or woman". not fail in Iraq? Geez. the place do you human beings arise with this textile? perhaps the late-evening communicate shows and information wrapup classes are offering loose crash classes in tunnel imaginative and prescient lower back. "Natalia". Spoken like a genuine American!

Answer 8

If the democrats want to prove to their base they have heard their voices, they will say no, end of funding. If the democrats don't agree to the funding, it's dead, period. They don't need to override a Presidential veto, they can present a spending bill that stipulates it goes for the withdrawal of the troops, that's it. If the President puts the veto pen to it, he doesn't get another bill and there is no more money, period. The beginning of the end is soon. It might take a year or a year and a half, but it's here.

Answer 9

Congress and America should ask for full accounting of how the money has been spent so far before giving Bush any more funds for the "war" in Iraq.

Answer 10

the shite cleric al-sair ordered his militia to halt attacks for 6 months. Seems that he is tired of his people being killed so lets see if he has the power attributed to him and if attacks do lessen.

those in congress who have any interest in a winnable solution to this situation would vote yes, i sure hope they grant it to keep our soldiers safer.

those in congress that want failure will not but they will have to live with their vote on record and that would require them to have the fortitude to vote NO and i don't think they will do that. i guess we will see what happens, if this is indeed true rather than just speculation that it is so far.

Answer 11

Only if your the one who is going to fly over there and explain to the soldiers why their country turned their backs on them during a time of war.