Support for Iraq War = Funding for Iraq? (1 Viewer)

[Lightdemon]

First I would like to introduce myself, as I am new to this forum. I am just somebody who is interested in discussing hot topics about politics, and is excited by all the topics that have been covered in these forums. I would like to add one of my own, one of which that has also been a good debate starter. So here goes....

[Begin Topic]
With our new democratic majority in both Houses, the majority of them oppose the war. Many of them say that Bush should have an exit plan. Many others say that this war is not right, that it's unjust, as well as costly. The overall consensus is that Democrats oppose the war.

However, Congress is still funding the war. One of the most fundamental powers of Congress is that it can check the Executive Branch. If Congress does not like how the Commander in Chief is handling the war, they can stop funding for it.

So, is funding for the war actually considered support for the war? Can Democrats say that they oppose the war, yet approve more spending money for the military?

[End Topic]

I dont know exactly how to post a new topic, how one should organize the OP, so any input on how to improve an OP, I would appreciate it very much.

 

[Iriemon]

First I would like to introduce myself, as I am new to this forum. I am just somebody who is interested in discussing hot topics about politics, and is excited by all the topics that have been covered in these forums. I would like to add one of my own, one of which that has also been a good debate starter. So here goes....

[Begin Topic]
With our new democratic majority in both Houses, the majority of them oppose the war. Many of them say that Bush should have an exit plan. Many others say that this war is not right, that it's unjust, as well as costly. The overall consensus is that Democrats oppose the war.

However, Congress is still funding the war. One of the most fundamental powers of Congress is that it can check the Executive Branch. If Congress does not like how the Commander in Chief is handling the war, they can stop funding for it.

So, is funding for the war actually considered support for the war? Can Democrats say that they oppose the war, yet approve more spending money for the military?

[End Topic]

I dont know exactly how to post a new topic, how one should organize the OP, so any input on how to improve an OP, I would appreciate it very much.

Hi LD, welcome to Debate Politics. I think your topic is an excellent one to start off with.

I agree that Congress controlling funding is a way that it can be (or should be) a check on a president's deployment of forces. I'm not sure that Congress can specifically cut spending for Iraq, for example, the president might be able to continue to fund the action with other defense funds.

I don't think that would be politically wise to do. Bush is still the commander in chief, it is untimately his call on his war for the next 2 years. Furthermore, if the Dems pulled the rug on $$ they would be criticized for not supporting the troops, as opposed to not supporting the policy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Congress definately needs to check its boy!

Welcome to Debate Politics!

 

[Lightdemon]

Thank you both.

I also want to add this: Campbell v. Clinton, Supreme Court 1999.

Congress told Clinton he cannot declare war on Yugosalvia. Yet Congress still voted to fund for the military that amounted to additional air strikes in Yugoslavia.

So here we have Congress saying "No Bill, you cannot call this a war. But here's 10 bucks, go buy yourself a few planes and bomb those bad boys."

In that Supreme Court ruling, it said something about Congress cannot be opposed to the war, and still pass appropriations of funds to the military that is for that war. Congress was actually trying to sue Clinton for using those funds inappropriately. But the Supreme Court poingnantly points out that if Congress does not support the war, then it should not have given the Executive branch more funds. The problem, as the SC points out, is that Congress is divided on the issue, and has not decided whether they are for or against the war in Yugoslavia. And so Clinton took advantage of thier divided stance.

Now with Iraq, Pelosi has made it clear that immediate withdrawal of the troops is not an option that is on the table, so that means total withdrawal of funds is also off the table. Yet it is clear that the Democratic party in majority is against the war in Iraq. But in the context of Campbell v. Clinton, is our Democratic party a united front against the Bush Administration? To me it doesn't seem so.

 

[Zcott]

Although there's now a Democratic majority, they're still having to bow to the Bush adminstration and assist in the cleanup process. Despite being very definitely against the war, they have to work with the administration to fix the whole issue. As Iriemon said, if the Democrats pulled the rug on $$ they would be criticized for not supporting the troops.

The Democrats are now in the exceptionally uncomfortable position of having to help fund the war they are so opposed to, as cutting the money would be political suicide. Not only are they having to help fund it in the short term, but I believe they will still be funding it when the re-elections come round in a couple of years.

According to an article in The Guardian, the cost of the war in Iraq is "likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion", which is an extortionate amount of money in anyone's book. But unfortunately they don't have any way around it. Here's hoping any tax increases don't look like they're funding the war.

Also, hello from a new poster.