Since the democrats control congress, why aren't they taking away funds for the Iraq war?

Question

I keep hearing that we only went into Iraq because of Bush and the republicans and because they were the majority at the time, so it wouldn't have mattered whether some or all of the democrats voted against it. Well, democrats are in control of the congress, so am I wrong to say that if they all vote against funding the war, our troops will have to come home?

My point is that democrats are just as responsible for the mess as the republicans are. The republicans admit that they voted for the war, but the democrats are playing two sides. They keep funding it, and then they say we should withdraw. What's up with that irony?

Answer 1

they don't have solid majority which is veto proof. lately whatever moves are requested for iraq by dems, the repubs use their veto power. next year democrats should have veto proof majority.

Answer 2

You only need votes to pass a bill.

It doesn't take any votes, NOT to approve a funding bill.

If no funding bill is approved.

There is nothing for the Republicans to block,

And nothing for the President to Veto.

Congress has to pass another funding bill this month.

With no funding bill, the troops have to come home.

Whether the president likes it or not.

So the Democrats do have all the power and control they need.

The Democrats have total control of what bills get introduced and what bills can be voted on.

The question is, do they have the political courage to use it or not.

So far, the answer has been NO, they do not.

And yes, i agree, the Democrats would get slammed if they they did with hold a funding bill.

I think after the last Bush veto, the democrats should have stood firm.

And told Bush, fine, you vetoed the funding bill.

Now live with the consequences.

And re-voted on the exact same bill and sent it back to Bush.

As many times as necessary, before Bush accepted it.

.

By the way, Im a Republican.

And as i see it, Bush is willing to pay the price for what he believes is the right thing to do.

Doesn't matter if I agree with him or not.

But so far, the Democrats are not willing to pay the price for what they think is right.

Untill that changes, nothing will change.

And contrary to popular opinion, stopping funding, will not stop food and supplies for the troops.

Answer 3

Possibly because they recognize what a political and humanitarian mess it would be in the short run. In the long run, letting nutcases overthrow everything we've worked to build over the last four and a half years and in essence giving them a base of operations would be quite a stupid idea in regard to national security.

On the other hand (the one upon which the Democrats mean what they say), they really don't have enough support to cut off funding. They have a majority, but most decisions in the Senate (particularly one such as reduction of military spending) requires a supermajority vote -- in the case of our Senate, for example, that means that at least 2/3 of the Senators, or 67, must approve such a measure. Currently in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans are equally matched (even though the Democrats technically do have a two-man majority of 51-49, as the two Independents caucus with them on most issues). Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, the Democrats only have a 31-man lead over the Republicans; percentage-wise, that amounts to about 54% to 46%, so there's no supermajority there either.

In short, the Congress right now is about evenly balanced between the two parties. You'll hear about Republicans switching to the Democrats' side on the war, but there are (believe it or not, though you won't hear it from the mainstream media) some Democrats doing the same thing in reverse. This keeps opinion about the war in the Congress about even; the only way to change the level of majority required is to change Congressional procedure, which takes far longer than is (dare I say) politically practical for the Democrats who wish to end the war, and promised to do so NOW. (Meaning eight months ago, when their term started.)

Answer 4

They did vote, but it was vetoed by Bush and his Veto was upheld. The Democrats only have a 1 or 2 seat advantage in the Senate.

So you are wrong when you say they have done nothing and you are wrong about the funding! And you are wrong in your conclusions as I guess you have not learned how government works yet!

When Bush had a Republican house he didn't have to worry he didn't have to veto bills as he got what he wanted!

So, you are absolutely and totally wrong.

"Bush Keeps Vow to Veto War Funding Bill
President Says Pullout Deadline Is 'Date for Failure'

By Michael Abramowitz and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 2, 2007; Page A01

President Bush vetoed a $124 billion measure yesterday that would have funded overseas military operations but required him to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as early as July, escalating the most serious confrontation between the White House and Congress over war policy in a generation.

Bush carried through on his veto threat just after the legislation arrived at the White House, calling the timetable a "prescription for chaos and confusion" that would undercut generals. "Setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments," he said last night. "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure."

What they did do was get him of his dead *** as "stay the Course" was a bunch of BS!

Even if they do draw-down the troops, and get another 1,200 killed between now and July, then what?

Face it, Bush wants to be an occupying force to protect the oil he thinks belongs to him!

This war could go on forever! You Republicans would like that. Think of all the corporate welfare!

If the Democrats held a 2/3 majority in the Senate, Bush would not even be president!

Answer 5

The Dems did pass a funding bill that included a requirement for Bush to find a way to hand over the responsibility for Iraqi security to those who should own it - the Iraqi government (you know the one - Republicans were raving about what a great success the elections were). Bush in a fit of unprecedented irresponsibility vetoed this bill. In other words Bush was prepared to play with the lives of our troops, keeping them in harm's way without adequate funding rather than look for a way to end the war.
In response to this the Dems did the right thing - making sure the troops would be properly funded.

Answer 6

If they pulled funding for the war in Iraq, the troops would come home. But they would be seen as not supporting our troops. Which is a quick death to re-election. Of course they voted (well most) for the war. Everyone wanted to be seen a "Pro America" at the time. Then it grew to be unpopular. So then they "flip flopped" and boom "wouldn't have voted for it if I only knew".. Yea you had access to the exact same intelligence reports the president gets. So yea.. Didn't you read it? If you didn't then you can't blame someone else.

Answer 7

Our politics works on concensus or majority vote so they need more than 50% of the votes to pass a bill. So many things don't even get proposed because they know it will not pass. Also many politicians will not vote on withholding funding because it will be perceived as not supporting the troops and that will hurt their chances for re-election.

Answer 8

They tried that. They found out that the only thing they'd do is starve our troops and fail to supply them, and that made them lose voter base.

But really, they are against us having gone into Iraq. Nobody should be for pulling out, because pulling out would mean a massive Iraqi sectarian war followed by a huge genocide. However, they rant about how Bush is stupid for going into Iraq and it's bad because that's the only thing liberals do for support, attack republicans.

Answer 9

Good luck trying to convince the liberals that the democrats are just as responsible for Iraq as the republicans.

Answer 10

Because elected empowered Democrats are wealthy rich people too.

War in Iraq: the US versus "Al-Quada". The stakes? I still haven't figured out exactly what.

War in D.C.: Republicans versus Democrats. The stakes? Billions of fly away $$$$ that fails to ever be accounted--oh, where do you think whose pockets they'll land into???

Answer 11

i think Saddam did have weapons at one time, yet that he have been given rid of them and had them buried interior the Bekka Valley in Syria. there have been shown journeys between Iraq and Syria perfect before the invasion. i might have performed the comparable element as Bush, yet standard, it wasn't an incredibly reliable determination.