If Congress stops funding the war, resulting in harm to the troops, who would you blame: Congress or Bush?

Question

Our Constitution is based upon the separation of powers. Congress is given the sole responsibility for declaring war and for financing the war. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, is given sole responsibility for the conduct of the war and thus, the safety of the troops.

The Framers, in their wisdom, believed that to wage a war, the nation must be united. Thus, waging a war requires the co-operation of both the legislative branch and the executive branch of government. If either branch decides that it wants to stop the war, the war must stop.

If Congress were to cease funding the war (which requires only a simple majority of "Nays" in the House of Representatives), the nation would no longer be united and the war would have to be stopped. In that case, the President would have to remove the troops from harm's way or be solely responsible for any harm done to them.

In the latter case, the House of Representatives could impeach both the President and the Vice-President.

(1) Cutting off the funding would not force Bush's hand. But, if harm came to the troops as a result of a lack of funding, it would be his sole responsibility. The House could then impeach both Bush and Cheney. The Senate could then convict them on a two-thirds majority vote, and the Speaker of the House would become President.

(2) There is no other way to frame the question.

(3) Both Congress and the President are responsible for the present state of affairs. It takes two to tango. If either partner doesn't want to dance, the music stops, according to the Framers.

If you don't like our form of government, go somewhere else.

(4) The true question is how to get rid of all of the Nazi scum. I killed a few in WW II and it just wasn't enough. Like maggots, they keep coming back.

(5) 007 - Are you typing from a combat zone? Or are you glad that we don't have a draft? Please send me an email and explain how brave you are.

(6) Bloodsucker - are you trying to say that my question and explantion were too logical and air-tight to argue with.?

If you agree with my statement, you have a moral obligation to demand that your Congressman stop funding. Otherwise, you have a moral obligation to take part in an intellectual dialogue, like a good citizen.

(7) crabby_blindguy - If there are enough votes to cut off funding, there will be enough votes to impeach: a simple majority of the House. The Senate will be another hurdle.

All that is lacking to stop the slaughter and let the Sunnis and the Shi'ites settle their own problems is a flood of letters (not email) on your Representative's desk. Morally, we have only to do what our conscience tells us is right.

Pessimism that stops a moral act is immoral. And that would be a shame.

If anyone is brave enough to give me their email address, I will send them my 2-page solution to end the war.

(8) Janice h - Are you reading the US constitution? Mine says that all money bills start in the House and goes nowhere without a majority approval.

Congress does not vote against a budget. They either grant the funds or refuse the funds.

Anyone who wants further information or has complaints can send me an email.

(9) espreses - Do you have a language problem? Please read the question and the explanation again. Try to explain logically why Congress is to blame. That's called dialogue.

Incidently: hablo espanol. Je parle francais. Ich spreche deutsch. Io parlo italiano. If you have a language problem, send me an email.

(10) Chatterus - Read the explanation again. All that is needed to stop funding is a simple majority of the House.

(11) p_i_gray - Misconceptions? I hardly know where to start.
a) the Constitution is not based on the rule of law; the Constitution is the law!
b) borrow a dictionary and look up the word: "commander". That's where the buck stops.
c) Safety is not a part of war? Tell that to the Marines.
d) On funding, please read my response #(8) to janice_h.
e) Try to find a copy of the Constitution. Impeachment can proceed on the grounds of a "Misdemeanor". This would include gross incompetence and dereliction of duty, such as failure to remove troops from harm's way.

(12) Flying_James - Congress will watch the polls and hold a finger up to the wind. The whole idea is to blow a lot of wind Send me your email address and I will show you how it's done.

Cmmander cod y70 - Funding the war has absolutely nothing to do with a declartion of war. Funding the war is concerned only with funding the war.

Sanityinga - that's why they put impeachment powers in the Constitution!

Brian -

Grow up! This is not an opinion poll. This is a political debate. You cannot just answer "Yes" or "No", "for" or "against"!

I presented facts and logic. You are required to oppose my position by disputing my facts and/or pointing out the flaws in my logic.

Americans are dying every day because citizens don't accept the responsibilities required of citizens.

Fifty percent of all citizens have below-average intelligence. Which half do you wish to join?

Tom T & Honeybeejim
Please read my answer to Brian. Do you guys ever read anything beyond the question. Have you absolutely no interest in the extended remarks?

justme
Stopping the war is not ending the war. Try to borrow a good dictionary.

Answer 1

Interesting twist, but it's simple, really. If someone does something, and does it intentionally, with reasonable knowledge of the likely outcome, then the blame goes to the doer, and that intent.

So, If Congress stops funding the war, then they are responsible, in large part, for the outcome.

The President would not be beyond implication, since the President must do as Clausewitz mandated, and mobilize the national will...this includes selling Congress on the need for funding.

But the primary blame would reside with Congress.

Answer 2

This was a war planned for long before we declared it and even when we delared it under false pretenses. Therefor no war was necessary except to get our troops in place along a very important oil reserve that had been out of our control for too many years...now we have bases along that pipeline and they are not going away no matter if the war is "funded" or not..and because those reserves and oil lines are shared and close to Iran its a target for US agression...Cheney is already planning the next invasion though he would rather see no ground troops involved just air strikes...who will fund that war...? You see the oil companies and nations have been patiently waiting for the time to force the Iraqi government to accept a deal to "pay off" their war debts....they have balked in fact they "agreed to disagree" before leaving in August...that was just as we started the nest "cleansing" of disidents(you can call them what you like but the opposition was the Iraqi oil worker's union and other unions) so now we fave to decide to fund the corruption or start delivering humanitarian aid which is desparately needed by millions of Iraqis(those that can't leave the country) The UN has pulled out so there are only those left who can't leave....we need to change the contracts that the oil companies are trying to force on a subject nation....Are we honest with ourselves or with the world? no way should we continue funding a war of agression that leaves millions of people exhausted, exposed to the worst of conditions..Think about it...Are Iraqis better off today than under Sadam...they don't think so and keep teeling us to leave...we should get the message and change our purpose for a truly humanitarian aid program. this would make allies not enemies and work against the malitias and al qiada forces....We created this mess at least have the intelligence to let these people create their own destiny and get out troops home...

Answer 3

Hmmmm... are you severe?!... We destroyed the government of Iraq and by utilising worldwide regulation we can not bypass away till there's a central authority in place to guard the human beings... the genuine project is.. that extremely some the human beings interior the rustic are of one faith that doesn't recognize the rights of something of the human beings and visa versa... so that is puzzling to establish a democratic government... because of this, it is going to take us approximately 2 generations to change the ideas-set of the human beings there with a view to correctly known that human beings of all faiths have specific rights, no longer in basic terms those of the governing faith... 2 generations.. or approximately 40 years of toiling interior the desolate tract... If congress cuts the investment and forces our troops out then the government will cave in and a few style of vicious dictatorship will take over and there'll be chaos for a time.. many harmless lives lost.. many means struggles.. and maybe the faiths with the less numbers would be eradicated... so, sure.. this could be political suicide for people who vote for it.

Answer 4

Technically you are correct. However, political powr struggles don't always turn on poiints of law. Every decent American wants the troops out of Bush's quagmire--but the political reality is this: as long as Bush refuses to work in good faith with Congress--all the negative consequences are going to land on him. If the Democrats cut off funds, Bush is unethical enough to leave the troops in harms way. But--that is likely to get more troops killed than working to gradually wear down Bush's remnant of support in Congress, slow though it is.

So the Democrats have an unpleasant choice: Cut off funds--and not only take part of the heat but create a situation in which Bush may get even more troops killed--or paly a longer term strategy, despite the cost.

Answer 5

Your question is full of misconceptions.....

Our Constitution is not based on a seperation of powers it describes the seperation of powers. It is based on the rule of law.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President as Commander in Chief is responsible for the safety of troops. Safety and warfare are mutually exclusive concepts.

Congress, specifically the House of Representatives can not stop funding the war simply by a majority vote. It can only stop funding the war through the legislative process i.e. by bill and measure. The President can veto any legislative measure that would then be returned for re-vote. Congress would need a two thirds majority to over turn the veto.

Impeachment must be on the grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors.... prosecuting an unpopular war that congress disagrees with, where soldiers get injured and killed, does not rise to the level of a high crime.


{edit} Wow, you're an idiot.

11) p_i_gray - Misconceptions? I hardly know where to start.
a) the Constitution is not based on the rule of law; the Constitution is the law!

No.. the constitution established the rule of law... It's not that difficult of a concept. The constitution in and of itself makes very little law. Please list for me the laws that the constitution makes.

b) borrow a dictionary and look up the word: "commander". That's where the buck stops.

I don't need to use a dictionary to look up "commander" as I have served as a military commander. And your definition is extremely short sighted.

c) Safety is not a part of war? Tell that to the Marines.

I never said that safety is not a part of war... I said that the are mutually exclusive concepts. There is a difference but obviously, you'll never deliniate the two.

d) On funding, please read my response #(8) to janice_h.

You numbers are either A) intentionally wrong to pad your argument or B)Wrong because of your misconception of the facts. Either way, they are wrong. Would you like the link to the GAO website????

e) Try to find a copy of the Constitution. Impeachment can proceed on the grounds of a "Misdemeanor". This would include gross incompetence and dereliction of duty, such as failure to remove troops from harm's way.

Gross incompetence and dereliction of duty are felonies withint the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Failure to remove troops from harms way has never been the sole charge in any court martial. I would challenge you to find a single case to support your ridiculous argument.

Derelection of duty.... geeze, do I really need to explain this, or should I simply copy your comments and tell you to find a copy of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and look it up. Because it simply does not apply.


The lame rantings of a liberal mean little to me. I have said all I will say to you.

You lied about your facts, you have no clue about what you are complaining about. You are not worth the argument

Answer 6

If Congress stops funding the war they will be responsible for putting the troops in harms way.
By the way, it takes a super majority of the vote against the defense department budget to cut that departments funding. Even if this were to happen it does not state that the President must then order the immediate withdrawal of the troops. It would cut all funding to the department creating massive problems and preventing the men and women in service from even getting paid.
But, you don't care about any of that do you? You just hope we will agree with you and say what a great way to impeach the President and the Vice-president. It wouldn't work that way though. That is still not an impeachable offense. I really wish you people would stop thinking that just because you oppose the war that all of us have to agree with you.

Answer 7

Forgive me for seeming naive, but aren't the troops already being a little more then harmed even with funding? I blame congress and the President right now. Congress for giving their approval to use military force and the President for using that force in Iraq. Let's try this scenario. The democrats simply say, no more funding, it's over. Never mind what the republicans want, never mind what the President wants, no more funding we won't sign. Then what?

Answer 8

Congress will not stop funding the war because it would be perceived or "spun" as lack of support of the troops & in favor or terrisiom. Even the the War on Terror was not the reason for the going to Iraq in the first place.

Answer 9

This is not a war, it is an occupation, and falls outside the Constitutional parameters for the delaration of war, granted solely to the Congress. The founding fathers probably could not envision the day when the country who first threw out its colonizers on the ears, would be invading and occupying other countries.

Answer 10

Congress!