What will happen if Congress sticks to it's path?

[techs]

Interesting read by Krugman today.
He points out there is a bill, passed by both houses of Congress.
This bill provides funding for our troops in Iraq.
Yet the President refuses to sign it and fund our troops.
What will happen when the funds run out? Will Bush refuse to supply our troops in a combat zone?

 

[Moonbeam]

If he does he should be impeached. We have determined by his own words that not funding the troops amounts to treason.

 

[JD50]

Ok, lets use your logic, say a Republican introduced a bill that included funding for the troops but required that we maintained current troop levels in Iraq until 2017. If Democrats refused to vote for this bill because of that stipulation would it be fair to accuse the Democrats of refusing to fund our troops?

 

[Mardeth]

I wonder who will back out first... But yea, it isnt just about the funding techs...

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: JD50
Ok, lets use your logic, say a Republican introduced a bill that included funding for the troops but required that we maintained current troop levels in Iraq until 2017. If Democrats refused to vote for this bill because of that stipulation would it be fair to accuse the Democrats of refusing to fund our troops?

Almost a good analogy, however there is a key difference. The majority of Congress (and thus "Congress") would not approve such a bill. In this case, Congress, a government branch with equal power and responsibility as the President, has approved a timetable for withdrawal. Bush, as President, has the right to refuse that requirement. However both have the responsibility of coming together and negotiating to avoid a stalemate. Bush is denying a path to negotiation, vetoing the funding, and thus creating a stalemate and denying funding to the troops.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Mardeth
I wonder who will back out first... But yea, it isnt just about the funding techs...

Nearly 100% of those dems are going to run for re-election, either in congress or for president. Bush is not. Congress will bend.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Mardeth
I wonder who will back out first... But yea, it isnt just about the funding techs...

Nearly 100% of those dems are going to run for re-election, either in congress or for president. Bush is not. Congress will bend.

Congress was elected to set a new course for the war, they are doing so. If they bend I won't vote for them.

Bush doesn't have the authority to fund and keep an army in the field. The President is supposed to control the army once it has been raised and deployed by Congress. However, Bush seems to think he controls all three actions. I seriously hope that they teach him a lesson in Constitutional Law.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: JD50
Ok, lets use your logic, say a Republican introduced a bill that included funding for the troops but required that we maintained current troop levels in Iraq until 2017. If Democrats refused to vote for this bill because of that stipulation would it be fair to accuse the Democrats of refusing to fund our troops?

I wonder if that could in violation of Congress' powers to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.