Why don't the Democrats filibuster the funding bills for the war in Iraq?

Question

The Democrats were elected with a mandate to end the war, which they could do by withholding funding. They wouldn't need a veto-proof majority, or even a simple majority. As long as they had 40 votes in the Senate, they could stop the war immediately by filibustering the war spending bills.

By the way, don't tell me about "supporting the troops". Funding the war means leaving the troops in harm's way in Iraq. Blocking the funding means they come home where they're safe. The money supports the war, not the troops.

Answer 1

If they decided to cut off funding for the war, Bush would be on the tv the next day claiming how things were getting better in Iraq, but now because of the Democrats, the war is a failure. What is sad is tht a lot of people would buy it. In other words, Dems do not want to give Bush and the Republicans an out to blame them for the results in Iraq.

Answer 2

Spending bills originate in the House. There the Democrats have a majority, and there is no filibuster rule.

In order to "stop the war," all they need do is NOT include funding for Iraq in the appropriations. That's it. Don't include it in a bill. And if Bush vetoes it, or it's stopped in the Senate, then just hold firm and don't include Iraq in ANY funding bill. There would be nothing the Republicans or the president could do about it. (This is pretty much how the Democrats in Congress "ended" America's involvement in South Vietnam, by the way.)

If they are not taking this step, it must be for a reason. I think a primary concern is their belief that the public would NOT support such a move.

Answer 3

It could be political suicide... The Democrats could be accused of not spending enough money to help the troops in Iraq (or training Iraqis to defend their country).

The Democratic party will probably agree to the funding with very strong reservations (= denouncing the Bush administration but voting for the bill to keep troop morale up). They are eyeing the 2008 election so they don't want a negative perception of not helping the troops.

If and when they win the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections, they can dictate how the Iraqi campaign is run... Whether it's to draw down troop levels, impose deadlines on the Iraqi government, or even to split the country into 3 autonomous states... The Democrats just have to be patient and propose a better plan for the 2008 campaign.

Answer 4

This petition inspite of the reality that laudable,is a waste of time. The Democrats as quickly as returned will refuse to stand on liberal concepts and use the filibuster on the spending invoice .this might require the Dems to act completely on my own without the all significant(or a minimum of to their political advisers) Republican suggestions . The Dems desire/desire the conceal of bi-partisanship in doing something and everthing to stop the war and Republicans be responsive to that . For years now the Republicans have by utilising sticking heavily to their concepts and with a techniques better political statagies ,forced the Dems to play their pastime .they have and proceed to regulate the schedule EVEN in the MINORITY !!!!! it extremely is ALL because of the fact the Dems won't stand for liberal concepts and provide human beings a real decision and human beings experience this "un-sureness" on the component to the Dems and de facto do no longer see them as solid and RESOLUTE and STAYING THE course regardless of the course is. voters desire solid leaders and management and the Dems for years have not given this . Make actual NO mistake yet that the Democratic 2006 victory grow to be plenty extra approximately an ANTI-REPUBLICAN reality extremely than a professional-DEMOCRAT one. If Dems filibuster the spending invoice,they could have finally stood up and "placed THEIR funds the place THEIR enormous FRIGGIN MOUTHS ARE " and irrevocably placed them on a finished new course . i do no longer think the Dems are waiting to make one among those profoundly significant pass in direction of what they're assume to symbolize for they worry that in the time of so doing could unfastened the White domicile next 365 days and are not prepared to guess that one among those paradyn shift could provide them ,in reality, an overpowering victory.

Answer 5

Why waste time. The Democrats will propose bills and the Republicans wil obstruct them. Standard procedure. If by some miracle the Republicans do agree to something based on the will of the people Bush will just veto it anyway. There aren't enough votes to override a veto. After the 2008 election there may just be enough Democrats to override a veto but then that won't be necessary because the Democratic President will be signing the bills supporting the will of the people.

Answer 6

Thank You!
You nailed it. Filibuster! That's the only way they can stop the $191,000,000,000 Blank Check for continued U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately fear number one for most Democrats:
Republicans and the media calling them "weak on Defense."

They would rather let thousands more of our troops die over the next few years for the slogan "support our troops" when in reality it really means "kill our troops."

Answer 7

The Democrats control Congress. Filibuster is a weapon of the minority. If the Democrats don't want something to move forward they simply saw so. Bills can only move forward when the Democrats if the Dems want them to. So if the funding bill for Iraq goes forward it is because the Democrats want it to go forward.

Answer 8

The majority of democrats in congress are a pack of weasles. They lack a backbone to do the will of the people. They focus all their efforts on getting elected and rich after leaving office, just like republicans. Why does a senator who admits guilt in a sex sting fight to get back in? To get his take when his "service" is over.

Answer 9

well... most ran on a platform of setting time lines for an Iraq withdraw to hopefully stabilize the nation some... not cutting funding for an immediate pullout.

and I think they are a little afraid of how crazy Bush is... basically they are afraid he would leave the troops there without proper funding, just to "prove his point"... and if you think he wouldn't do it, you probably haven't been paying attention to his past decisions...

and if Bush did that... it would look really bad for everyone...

Answer 10

Historically speaking... blocking funding ='s the death of your party... they couldn't do much good if they did that.