Does anyone else feel that congress should say out of war business?

Question

“Democrats reject general's Iraq plan”
Does this headline make anyone else upset? I should first say I am a democrat . But it is my view that if we go to war we shouldn’t tie out men’s arms behind their back before pushing them out to fight. I understand the view that we shouldn’t be there but to me, we should go all out or go home…. How does everyone else feel? Do you think it's ok for congress to tell the army how many men they should or shouldn't have?Or how they should or shouldn't attack? Or is it there place only to tell them when and where to fight.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Answer 1

HEY HOPE U ALL VOTE CZ THE CONGRESS HAS ALOT OF POWER THIS QUESTION MADE MY DAY LMAO

Answer 2

I Agree that Congress should not be telling the Generals how to fight the war. Once Congress has voted to deploy our military it should be left to the Military. People like Harry Reid want to run the war and call the shots from his desk in Washington D.C. The Facts are that the President and Congress all had the same information and they voted to send our Military to Iraq, now it is the duty of our Country and its Citizens to support our military and this country should send the world a message that we are United in this fight. If I were the Enemy, I would love all the fighting that's going on between the Democrats and the Republicans. We are in Iraq and we have to see it through to the end to establish or maintain creditability in the World. If mistakes are made we should learn from them and not make the same mistakes in the future. I'm sick and tired of all the Mud Throwing, that doesn't accomplish anything. I think it's time for the Democrats and Republicans to put their heads together and show the World that this really is, "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

Answer 3

Both houses of Congress must vote on a declaration of war. This is part of the Checks and Balances the Founding Fathers so wisely put into the Constitution and also why the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces is the President of the United States to prevent the military from assuming to much power. However, some Presidents should let the military run a war. Examples: Viet Nam and Iraq.

Answer 4

Congress should fund the war, and get the hell out of the way until it's won. General Petraues was confirmed unanimously to lead our forces to victory (he wasn't confirmed so he could fail, right??). Congress voted for the war, funded it NUMEROUS times, and now they want to try to make a fool of the General and call him a liar for telling them that we are winning!!! IS that backwards or what??!??????

Since you are a democrat, and it is the democrats in Congress who are badgering General Petraeus, and insulting him by basically calling him a liar, how about if you contact your representatives and ask them to back off? Ask them to let the General go ahead and win the war. Tell them what you've just told us. You are right about one thing; we are there so we MUST win. How can anything else be acceptable????

Good luck with talking to your reps abou this, since your congressmen and senators are all beholden to MoveOn.org, and the rest of the far, far left. Keep your sanity and good sense; the building blocks of a good conservative.....

Answer 5

Well, thankfully the Founding Fathers were very wise (much wiser than any politician or media outlet today) and understood that war could not be waged by a large political body like Congress.

This is exactly why the power to wage war was given to the President.

Answer 6

Actually they have no power over the war once they give the president authority to wage it (as they did for Iraq in public law 107-243 overwhelmingly passed in Oct 2002). They can control funding for it but what they are doing now is nothing more than a political circus to entertain their voters.

Answer 7

Its a check and balance system. They did nothing wrong. Why would the soldiers need to be fighting anyway. Not to sound ignorant, but hardly anything of value is happening right now in terms of progress. This war (or general lack thereof) has been relatively unfruitful, and will more than likely continue to be, so why continue to send more troops over, or have more fight. I suppose it depends on what the plan was, but I dont know it.

Answer 8

Bottom line, The military should plan and carry out a war with out Congress or the President butting in. Let's face it they are only looking at polls and they have no experience.

Answer 9

Congress is there because they are the Representatives of the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, US, "WE THE PEOPLE "; WE APPOINT THEM. President Bush was supposed to have gone through CONGRESS to have approval in the WAR IN IRAQ, and he didn't. NOW AMERICANS WANT THEIR TROOPS HOME AND ALL NOT A PORTION OF THEM. This WAR is another Vietnam. Our TROOPS have been drained to thin and this War will destroy OUR ECONOMY in the LONG RUN. The IRAQ people have not tried to solve their own CIVIL War or control their own people, which makes me believe that Al Quada insurgents will never stop the VIOLENCE. Lets not go all out because there isn't an outlet but a DEAD END. OUR TROOPS and their FAMILIES are the ones that are SUFFERING THE MUST; MORE THAN 2 TOURS WILL DESTROY A SOLDIER AND HIS/HER FAMILIES. NEXT TO SUFFER IS OUR ECONOMY AND THE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA. GENERAL P' IS JUST PROTECTING HIS CAREER. THE IRAQI'S ARE ONLY TO BLAME BECAUSE THEY SHOW NO URGENCY TO HELP THEMSELVES.
PLEASE VOTE IN 2008 ELECTIONS, AND GET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS! BRING THEM HOME NOW; NOT A PARTIAL BUT ALL OF THEM AND THOSE THAT ASSIST OUR TROOPS IN THIS WAR.
AMEN! SHALOM!

Answer 10

What I like is when one of the Senators posed the question to Petraeus: "Does this make our country safer?"

Not only was General Petraeus completely unqualified to answer that question, putting him in that position was done simply to undermine the hope that the general population has for a quick resolution of the war (there isn't going to be one, but hope has its purpose, y'know?). That senator tried to make our military leaders look like fools by asking questions completely unrelated to the General's report.

To answer your question: Yes. Congress should stay out of the war. It's partially because of them that we're still in there, what with their awarding civilian contracts over there totalling billions of dollars. Our military was forced to not only assist in the recovery and attempt to rebuild, they had to protect and serve those civilian contractors while they did it. If our military had been given the job of rebuilding, it would be done by now and we'd be gone.

The purpose of congress has always been to serve the people; somehow, during all this mess, I think they've lost sight of that. Now, it's all about espousing party ideas and trashing the competition--even if that 'competition' signed their life away to the commander-in-chief and swore to do what he/she was told by whoever held that office.

Answer 11

"War" is the main job of Congress, read the Constitution.
Today's Democrats are too short-sided. On that I'll agree.