What if Congress did have the balls to cut off funds for the Iraq war? So what? What would happen?

Question

No funds for the war means no war for Halliburton and the rest of the moneygrabbers. It isn't as if the govt is giving all of the veterans what they need and deserve when they return home. It isn't as though they are giving our young men and women all that they need in the "war" effort either
So----why hasn't Congress acted? Are they too caught up in the 'moneygrabbing' effort--for themselves of course.
Ask yourselves. Does Gerogewbush really give a ratzbehind for our troops? What is going on in his mind? Why a request for so much more money when we should be working towards bringing the troops home?
What is really going on in the minds of our representatives?

Answer 1

Congress won't act because they are collectively spineless -- they are more concerned with keeping their jobs and looking good than with doing what the American people want.

Congress has absolutely authority under Article I Section 8 to control federal funding -- and can simply cut off funding to the military for any further Iraq war effects -- no veto involved.

Congress won't because they are spineless, and because they are afraid of what people will think if something bad happens -- as if what's happening now isn't bad enough.

Answer 2

While bush is still in office, he is super committed to keeping the troops in iraq no matter what. So if congress pulls this game of not giving funding for the war, bush isnt going to get the troops home, so the only people that suffer is the troops because they can buy there supplies and logistical support.

Congress messed up by authorizing the war. Now if they dont fund the war, that doesnt mean the troops will pack up and come home, they will just do with what they got, and that can get them killed. Like no armor on there humvees, so congress needs to find another way to call for the troops to come home, maybe wait it out another couple months till bush leaves office and a democrat takes his place which is realistically the only way the troops are coming home. =) Who ever thinks congress can get the troops home before next years election while bush is in office is dreaming, and I will glady bet money that it will not happen. The HOR and the senate just arent effective as they should be.

Also to be honest, if that 50bil wasnt spent on Iraq, average american citizens would not see that money anyways.

Answer 3

Pres. Bush cant give funding. That is Congress which, led by the Democrats, has accomplished nothing since taking over in November. They have failed their country. I am for funding the war but if they are not, than "man-up" and do something about it! Either way the failures in Iraq are falling equally on an apathetic and lazy congress as much as they are on the Bush Administration. This failure to accomplish anything will not bode well for the democrats in 2008 because candidates cannot promise change when they are senators that have great ability RIGHT NOW to do something yet fail to act.

Answer 4

This is a meaningless question, because we all know noone in Congress is going to attempt to deny President loser's legacy to continue.

I say screw what congress does, and the troops (all the young men/women getting killed everyday), should just pack up and come home on their own will, like a form of social movement.

What would congress do, deny the troops a ride home? Make them stay? Doubt it, unless they want to see civil war in the White House front yard.

If the general public can't get congress to act, maybe the troops can do it...

Answer 5

Interesting question. You think about it and work it through. If the funds were cut off….. for every 1 combat soldier there are over 10 support troops. These folks move the bullets, food, water, medical supplies…… on and on. If You cut off the funds, you would have soldiers short on these supplies. Mass panic exodus. Do you want that? Are you old enough to remember watching the Marines evacuating the embassy in Vietnam?
What if…….. we had the instant news and this defeatist attitude of today back in WWII. We would have demanded pull out after D-day. Over 5000 died in just that one day. Today it is considered a great achievement.
History will remember G.W. Bush as a great leader and the Democrats will be remembered as poor pathetic political opportunists.

Sorry if the truth hurts.......... but then the dems could never get elected on truth.

Answer 6

This is a dilemma for Congress. If they cut off funding for the war what are the troops going to use to defend themselves? Ultimatums don't seem to work with this President, but perhaps if Congress threatened to cut funding by such & such a date, made it known to the public, & told him that he would either bring the troops home, plus the military equipment, or he would be charged will the deaths of the troops deployed after this date; charged in a court of law with treason for the unlawful killling of U.S. Service Personal. Could that work?

Answer 7

Confused? Like I said before there is no need to be if you would just open your mind as to what is really happening here. I know it is hard to believe in something that is touted as a conspiracy but you must realise that is how they get away with it. The media is the tool that they use to control your thought. All news stories don't give the facts they merely confuse you with ideas of how things supposedly are but rarely make sense. If you are in a state of confusion you can't see the truth. As soon as you use words such as New World Order people automatically think whoa, don't go there nutter but George Bush Senior addressed that very idea many many times publicly. Immediately after 9/11 exactly 10 years to the day after George Bush senior first mentioned the New World Order publicly and he did so many times after that, Gary Hart of the US commission on National Security 21st century stated "There is a chance, for the President of the United States, to use this disaster to carry out what his father, a phrase his father used I think only once and hasn't been used since and that is a New World Order". Now there are archives of George Bush Senior using the phrase New World Order many many times during his Presidency and Gary Hart know's damn well that is the case.

Answer 8

I'm not sure if it would make that much difference now, but I think it would have made a lot of difference in 2003. Iraq was still in a state of chaos during that time, but the new government in Iraq has gained more strength now. The Iraqis are more capable of controlling the violence and turmoil. That isn't what the liberal media in America wants you to think. The liberal media wants you to think President Bush and the Iraqis have lost all control of the situation there. You would be seeing nothing on your television but non-stop genocide if Iraq was really that dangerous of a place. Believe me. The media in America are like vultures. They would do anything to profit from something like that. Haliburton has made a lot of money because of the war in Iraq, but I don't believe this war is simply about making profits. I think the main reason Congress is keeping U.S. soldiers in Iraq is because of a potential war with Iran. The leader of Iran says he will make nuclear weapons as soon as possible. It would be much easier to attack him from Iraq. No one in the world wants to see the leader of Iran controlling the entire Middle East. I believe that's why they have no intention of leaving Iraq.

Answer 9

I love it. Had the balls, how about they PROMISED to do that, and never have. Uh, how come the democrat lead congress has lower approval numbers than the "worst" president of all time. How come they are having the worst approval rating ever, yeah, EVER. Although they haven't kept track that long, wow. Empty suits, at least Bush is doing what he said he would do, and the congress APPROVED that. Illegal war, ha.

Answer 10

I can hear them now. The cons would bring out the big gun fear tactics. The little ones they have been using will be nothing compared to what they will drag out. Fortunately such tactics don't work any more. They will look even more foolish and cause even more votes to go for the Democrats in 2008