Congress complains about the escalating cost of the war and yet keeps asking how high when President Bush tells them to jump?
2007-10-31 03:20:39 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The cost of keeping the US safe is a worthy one. Congress has the obligation to provide money for the war. President Bush has the amount needed to keep the war effort funded. So why won't Congress just pass it? It's because the DEMOCRATS are engaging in partisan politics.
2007-10-31 03:25:58 · answer #1 · answered by mustagme 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not only the escalating cost of war the escalating cost of life. They say we went to war for the oil . He was the biggest mistake that will go down in American history.
the Election is coming soon and no matter what the war in Iraq will continue. i have a strong feeling about this. Hilary and Obama want to bring the troops home, but is it going to happen i don't think so. Read your American History books every war that was started was because of the DEMOCRATS!!! I wouldn't be surprised if we go to war with Iran within the next 2 yrs. WW3 will start when that happens.
2007-10-31 03:48:21 · answer #2 · answered by elias s 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As much as I would like to see them cut off funds, there are a couple problems. A majority in the US(over 60%) want the Iraq war to end but a minority(30%) want congress to withhold funds. Also, if congress doesn't fund what Bush wants, he threatens to default on loans(US Treasuries). That would be the first time in history and you know what happens to individual credit if they don't pay their credit card bills. The US couldn't get as much credit and would pay a higher interest rate. And the US is running on credit.
More people have to get mad. Bush has run the credit cards up to their limit and the spouse(congress) still has to pay the bills.
2007-10-31 03:30:33 · answer #3 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Congress lacks a backbone, conviction, and does not have enough of a majority possibly to override Bush the decider.
But Congress is doing some things right. This nomination for the Attorney General. I hope they continue the fight against this nominee.
They need to go through the impeachment process with Bush and Cheney. Even if they lose, the message will be there.
2007-10-31 03:30:15 · answer #4 · answered by Unsub29 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because Congress understands the gravity of the situation in Iraq and knows that withdrawing means defeat and defeat has serious consequences to the United States. The Democrats may be giving troop withdrawal some lip service to cater to the lefties but they don't want to be responsible for the consequences a withdrawal brings with it.
The cost of the war is nothing compared to the cost of losing.
So . . . Kwitcherbellyakin!
2007-10-31 03:28:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Kinda makes you wonder who really believes in the War on Terror. This along with the status change by Senators Clinton and Obama's position on the return of soldiers. Their view changed after some second hand discussions with the current administration.
2007-10-31 03:25:48 · answer #6 · answered by rance42 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He might. Pelosi looked petrified when Bush said that Congress was holding our the troops funding hostage.
I have never seen such a woosy whiney speaker. Pelosi just doesn't have the guts to stand up to the bushwhacked agenda in the whitehouse. She can't even stand up to rhetoric, how can she fight the real battle?
Californians, ITS UP TO YOU.....VOTE PELOSI OUTTA OFFICE SO WE CAN HAVE A REAL LEADER IN CONGRESS.
2007-10-31 03:29:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, there is a possibility that someone in Washington actually wants to win the war, not lose it or surrender. Yeah, that is a horrible concept.
2007-10-31 03:37:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The supposedly hidden agenda of making himself and his corporate special interest groups extremely wealthy of 'untold' fortunes.
2007-10-31 03:27:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋