http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/arrest-bush-not-rev/
2007-09-15 08:37:04 · 14 answers · asked by WORD UP G 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They don't have sufficient votes to oppose.
Plain and simple.
2007-09-15 08:44:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's true. The Democrats need only stop the Dumbya bills in committee. Then it would take only 41 Senate votes to fillibuster a Dumbya bill. Somehow it is being spun that Democrats need 60 to stop a Repuke fillibuster and 67 for a veto override.
2007-09-15 16:00:49 · answer #2 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats have tried a few times to do just that but the Republicans have stopped it and Dubya has vetoed. Without enough Republicans on board to override the veto it is not going to happen. People will be reminded of the GOPs efforts to buck the people come election time next year.
2007-09-15 15:53:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they don't REALLY hate the war THAT much. I mean, yeah, it was a failed business venture for them but hey, a lot of people make a fortune off of this war!
And the widespread belief that the cutting of funds will "endanger" the lives of the troop is hideous. It merely is an order that Congress can give the president. If he decided to leave the troops there without cash (even HE woudln't do that), then HE would be endangering the troops.
Wait I forgot, he already is.
2007-09-15 15:46:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
They cannot. It is not possible for a committee of 535 people to control a war. Congress can either vote to authorize expenditures or not authorize expenditures.
What makes you think anyone in Congress can do a better job of spending defense dollars? When it comes to spending, Congressmen cannot control themselves.
2007-09-15 15:45:55 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because Bush still wouldn't bring our soldiers home.
He sent them there without sufficient armor in the first place.
All he would do is point to their hardships as equipment and supplies started to fail and blame the Democrats.
Bush will not draw down the war - he believes he has conquered Iraq and it belongs to the US, or the US corporate interests who invest in infrastructure there, to be more specific.
2007-09-15 15:47:07 · answer #6 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because cutting off funding to the Iraq war means pulling the tools to fight and survive in a hostile environment from all the US Soldiers (and marines, and airmen) there and putting them in grave danger. You kill the funding, you kill them. You want that on your hands?
Even if you think that it would somehow force a withdrawl, the lgistics don't exist to get 150k+ men and women out in a timely manner.
Pull the funding, kill the troops.
2007-09-15 15:45:07 · answer #7 · answered by Some dude 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's amazing how cowardly the party of Truman and Kennedy has become.
Poll driven bitches afraid of losing what they see as their right,i.e. their elected office.
It's sickening,to say the least.
2007-09-15 15:46:09 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Deep Down they believe in the war also, but for average liberal pansy the have to put up a front of being against the war,
2007-09-15 15:44:53 · answer #9 · answered by Bo Remmington . American ! 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
because they are scared what it would do to them politically in 2008. bunch of spineless liars!!!
2007-09-15 15:49:00 · answer #10 · answered by Go Blue 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋