It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Congress Use Power of the Purse to Stop Troop Surge?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

And then people still defend what Bush is doing in the white House.

Incredible!!!!!


But not nearly so many as before, marg - and that includes me. However, there will always be a nucleus of hard-core defenders willing to defend anyone and anything, no matter how bad they are or were. People still defending carter's presidency comes to mind as an example.




posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Still centurion . . . a new congress means nothing if they are to do the same thing.

All I want is accountability for the sake of our nation, our troops and our hard earned tax payer money, that has been squandered on oversea projects in Iraq and still our government wants more.

BTW nice to see you around.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Agreed. And thanks. Been involved in a project that was keeping me at the office until 2AM for several nights. No time or energy to post with that going on.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
the worst thing they can do politically is to send more troops over, and then not provide the money needed for them to have what they need....that would be a political nightmare for them....ALL of them. IF they send more troops over to IRaq, they need to supply them with the funding that they need. either with additional funds added to the budget, or hey, they can reappropriate some of the money that they designated for new planes and such, whatever. But, regardless of what congress says, this surge is gonna be sent....don't underestimate the insanity of the bush administration!! they are going, they are in training now, and they were preparing for this surge before they even started talking about it! I would prefer they just gave them the money needed to support these additional troops and then turn around and block bush on every other thing he tries to get through congress. I imagine there are alot of military families out there who feel like I do.....they are sick and tire of the political nutjobs in washington holding the lives of their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, and fathers and mothers hostage just for a few political wins!! they need to just forget about the politics, get along with each other and decide and do what is right...for our country.... for a change!

[edit on 10-1-2007 by dawnstar]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
It looks like Ted Kennedy wants to pass a bill that will require a vote in Congress to approve of any additional troops.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Edward Kennedy launched a pre-emptive strike Tuesday against President Bush's anticipated plans to send more troops to Iraq.

The Massachusetts Democrat introduced legislation to require congressional approval before force levels can be increased.

www.cnn.com...



Kennedy said he introduced the legislation "to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq."

He added that the bill says "that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation unless and until Congress approves the president's plan."

It does not sound like he will have the support needed to get this through, meanwhile other Democrats are proposing a non-binding resolution and vote on additional troops. The word on the street is that if the Democrats don't stand against this they may be criticized for not doing what voters expected them to after gaining the majority in the house.

What I also heard is that Bush will announce that our troops will be able to patrol where they have not been allowed to before, which is key to this mess. But once they start cleaning out the insurgents and back them into a corner the fighting will undoubtedly escalate and there will be more casualties.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Another question is that if what in the world more troops are to accomplish in that nation that the already troops in there can not do.

Any American should ask themselves this question.

It is because Bush wants to use our soldiers as shields once he get his goals of having the Iraqi government giving away the rights to the Iraqi oil to the oil barons in America?

Use them to protect the private investment and interest that is what this war is all about?

Well if this is the reason I think that all Americans should stand and voice to congress their disappointment and outrage and make our new congress aware of the reason they are now majority.

But the problem is that our present administration has not been clear of its doings in Iraq and has for 3 years keeping the truth away from the American public opinion.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
It looks like Ted Kennedy wants to pass a bill that will require a vote in Congress to approve of any additional troops.


The problem with what Kennedy is trying to do as I see it is that 1) Bush is commander in chief of the armed forces, not Kennedy and the other 534 members of congress, and 2) rightly or wrongly strategy-wise, Bush is prosecuting a war that congress previously approved.

These guys are always screaming about "another viet nam" when their actions are what would cause that to happen. all they care about is politics and trying to make Bush look bad. Don't see any evidence that Kennedy and his group care a ratz a$$ more about the welfare of the troops than the people they complain about.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
2) rightly or wrongly strategy-wise, Bush is prosecuting a war that congress previously approved.

Yes Congress did give him the power to use military force, but accourding to TK all the goals of that resolution have been met and it is time for a new resolution. From the article:


Mandate expired

Kennedy also said that the original mandate authorizing the Iraq war has expired because "the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress."

The Iraq War resolution "authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance," Kennedy said.

www.cnn.com...

I know that this war was also about other things like resources and permanent bases in Iraq, and this is something that you will not find either party complaining about.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
i think we should pull the troops, but this does not mean that the iranians, iraqians will still do the violence over there. usa is stuck with the mess over there wether we like it or not. we are to protect our national interests, the OIL over there. no matter what congress rambles on on whos side is better the democrats or the republicans. the fact is and stands as national interest and we will not let go of. we are bound over there and that is how it is , no matter who rambles. these domminos will fall this february and oil is the name of power. the heads of this nation are at work on these issues. we will have problems with iran, you can bet your bottom dollar on it. these lower gas prices at the pump will not last when this all happens and goes down, the value of the dollar will drop and the price of oil will rise. we will enter iran and when we do their buddies will alll join in in a boycott of oil goods to the usa or burnning of oil wells. they do not care for your welfare and are sick of us. this february sometime it will happen people . it is comming. usa is to be struck on 4 sides and we cannot handle that. we know the 3 so far , the fourth is questionable.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by centurion1211
2) rightly or wrongly strategy-wise, Bush is prosecuting a war that congress previously approved.

Yes Congress did give him the power to use military force, but accourding to TK all the goals of that resolution have been met and it is time for a new resolution. From the article:


Mandate expired

Kennedy also said that the original mandate authorizing the Iraq war has expired because "the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress."

The Iraq War resolution "authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance," Kennedy said.

www.cnn.com...

I know that this war was also about other things like resources and permanent bases in Iraq, and this is something that you will not find either party complaining about.


Attempting to run the war (any war) by congressional committee or opinion polls is sheer folly and smokescreen for the real reason behind all the rhetoric from democrats, which is to try and hurt Bush. It's also not constitutional. Too bad they are all so short-sighted as to not realize that they would be hurting the troops and not Bush, as he doesn't seem to care what anyone says or does. I'd like this war to be over as much as anyone else, but not by doing a cut and run.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Attempting to run the war (any war) by congressional committee or opinion polls is sheer folly and smokescreen for the real reason behind all the rhetoric from democrats, which is to try and hurt Bush.

It may seem that it is all politically motivated, but the politicians against the surge are both Democrats and Republicans, and after the last election, they are finally listening to what the people want. The problem is what the people want may not be the right thing.



I'd like this war to be over as much as anyone else, but not by doing a cut and run.

We would all like this war to be over, and I agree cut and run is not an option. If we left and the country fell into chaos, we will no doubt have to come back in the future and finish what we started, which should have been done back in GW1. Every time it gets harder and costs more lives.

At this point in time I am torn, because I know the real reasons behind this war. We should have never started this war, and our worst fears are being realized as we speak. If we leave there will be irreparable harm to our country and the mess we leave behind is blood on our hands. If I knew that the restrictions are removed on where our troops can go, and the Iraqis start to take their country back, and they would succeed, and that would be the end of it, then I would give GB one last chance. The problem is, I think they not only want to escalate the war in Iraq, but they want to start another with Iran. They don’t want an end to this war. They want more of it.

I wish I could support this surge, but I can’t in good conscience. Maybe this time the people are right .



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
It is a fact that the House and Senate can stop funding this war right? If they can then why don't they. The Democrats won the elections in November and they for the most part disagree with it. Why don't they stop voting for it? I don't think they should stop it by any means but why don't they stop it?



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConstantlyWondering
It is a fact that the House and Senate can stop funding this war right? If they can then why don't they. The Democrats won the elections in November and they for the most part disagree with it. Why don't they stop voting for it? I don't think they should stop it by any means but why don't they stop it?


There's an old saying that goes something like this:

"Having something is often not as great a thing as wanting it".

I think the dems are now very much in the process of finding the truth in that saying. Because now they can no longer just sit back and complain, they actually have to come with their own ideas and plans. And guess what. Every plan anyone comes up with has it's difficult choices to make. Now, if you are the party that tries to keep everyone happy (dems), you're going to find yourself paralyzed into inaction trying to figure out how to do the right thing for everyone involved - since it simply can't be done.

So, it was asked why the dems just don't vote to cut off funding when they can? Simple, they lack the cojones to make those big decisions. Got to stick that wet finger in the air and take some polls first in order to decide what to do. But wait! The polls all have different results and they keep changing! What to do, dems, what to do????


[edit on 1/16/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
You have voted centurion1211 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

That sums it up. Your answer is very thought provoking.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Because now they can no longer just sit back and complain, they actually have to come with their own ideas and plans.


Things are not as easy as they may sound Centurion, Bush for 6 years didn't have to ask congress while exercising his presidential war powers, because the congress was majority Republican.

Bush didn't have a strategic plan for Iraq . . . he never did . . . and now still he doesn't have a solution either after 3 some years of war.

His main goal was never to occupy and stabilize the nation of Iraq but to protect the oil fields.

The money billions of dollars that was approved for reconstruction are no where to be found, 150 corporations operating in Iraq and nothing to be shown for . . . money squandered, lost and missing.

Iraqis unemployment was never taken into consideration, a nation that keeps its people working and productive is a nation that thrives, that is why Iraq is a mess after invasion because most of the reconstruction money went into the hands of foreign workers that end up in the hands of the unhappy unemployed Iraqis insurgents to be decapitated.

Is a miss conception about funding Iraq, Centurion, the Iraqi war for this year is already funded . . . congress can not do anything about that money.

The only thing that congress can do is stop Bush from getting more money to be squandered over the already approved budget so he can not bring more troops into Iraq.

That is all Congress can do.

Beside, the Government of Iraq can not do anything and take any responsibility about their nation because the US is the one dictating their policies.

When the goal of invading a nation is about resources and not the well being of the nation this mess is what you get in the invaded nation.

Iraq is been torn apart by sectarian violence a government that can not govern and an occupying force that is dictating policies and lobbying the side of the government and growing capitalistic elite, into signing their resources to the invader corporate power while ignoring what the rightful owners of the nations resources . . . the people wants . . . because they are to busy fighting for their lives and trying to stay alive.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join