House Minority Leader John Boehner claims that democrats would be "handcuffing our generals and starve our troops, leaving them in harms way" if they have their way with only giving Bush a quarter of the money he asked for.
But wait a minute. Congress only has power in funding, not in pulling the troops out. This means the ultimate decision rests with Bush. So if congress works it out that Bush only gets a quarter of the funding, will he still make them stay in Iraq? Is Bush that inhumane that he would handcuff our generals and starve our troops, leaving them in harms way?
Need a link, here ya go. I saw it on CNN, but Fox news is reporting the same thing. Just so you righties and Bush supporters are happy, I'm giving you the fox link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309602,00.html
They are covering the story on CNN as we speak if you want to hear it on the other side as well.
2007-11-08 10:17:35 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Declaration of war does not mean to Commence war, as discussed during the Philadelphia Convention. A declaration of war simply lets the citizens of a nation know that they are now at war with some other nation or entity. It also puts the belligerent nations and their citizens on notice
2007-11-08 10:51:18 · update #1
Since December 11, 1941 Americans have been forced into war on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war.
2007-11-08 11:06:02 · update #2
Boomer: Churchill didn't lie to take his country to war.
2007-11-10 07:09:50 · update #3
First of all, It will never pass because Pelosi is not the great unifier in congress people thought she would be.
In answer to your question, If by some marginal chance Pelosi gets her way with only giving a quarter of the cash GW requested, I'm sure he'll find a way to fund them.
2007-11-09 10:17:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only thing that is going to happen is, the troops will come home and Iraqi's will be on their own. The US military will not overstay their funding in Iraq. This is a way to end the war, the way they could have ended the war through cutting off money to support it for years now, but have not.
2007-11-08 10:32:19 · answer #2 · answered by eldude 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are not going to cut the funds because the people would see that the Democrats made the cuts and then Hillary wouldn't have a chance. This is just more playing politics with the troops in Iraq because it is looking like our military people are winning and the Democrats don't want that to happen, they want to be able to say we lost and blame it on the Republicans.
2007-11-08 10:35:38 · answer #3 · answered by hdean45 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
FACT - According to the CONSTITUTION - Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the President is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2).
He can fight the war. But it is NOT his call how much funding to provide. He can only work with those forces available.
2007-11-08 10:37:06 · answer #4 · answered by dryheatdave 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Basically that's not what would happen. The money would come from somewhere else. Remember the money is to fight in Iraq, not Afganistan so the money earmarked for Afganistan would be safe. Since the combined cost is about $100 billion a year, the U.S. military probably could absorb the cost since it's tab is about $400 billion a year.
2007-11-08 10:34:52 · answer #5 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Answer to primary question: No, but Pelosi is.
Answer to commentary: our media is irrelevant. What Iran has been planning for years is more important.
(Funny how Churchill was considered such a good leader. He refused to put a time line or a budget constraint on that war he supported.)
2007-11-08 10:47:03 · answer #6 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The GOP is whining that they can no longer give Bush a blank check to wage endless wars with.
On top of that, the money procurred isn't enough to spend lavishly on the security contractors and Halliburton. (Which is where the bulk of our war funding is going.)
So anyone who is handcuffing and starving our troops would be the same idiot who said that Saddam was getting yellowcake uranium from Niger.
2007-11-08 10:35:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
God, it somewhat is yet another massive difficulty incorrect with the Iraq conflict, contractors doing artwork which would be finished with the aid of defense force enlisted in previous wars at a plenty greater value. That the artwork is finished badly is each and all of the extra serious.
2016-10-15 12:46:02 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only people in favor of "handcuffing our generals and starving our troops, leaving them in harms way" are Democrats. Their treatment of our soldiers shows the contempt they have for our people who are pledged to defend us.
2007-11-08 15:04:18 · answer #9 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Look around you in the USA right now.
Seems to me ...most anything would be possible. And no matter how heinis, it would likely be accepted.
2007-11-08 10:42:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋