Congress vs Executive: Who will blink first?

[Upchurch]

Democrats challenge Bush on Iraq bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070423/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_37)

Bush will veto the bill, no doubt, but how long can he go without the money? Congress could re-write the bill without the deadline, but will they?

I'd say we've got us an old fashioned showdown and it's almost high noon.

*cue "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" music*

[Darth Rotor]

Democrats challenge Bush on Iraq bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070423/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_37)

Bush will veto the bill, no doubt, but how long can he go without the money? Congress could re-write the bill without the deadline, but will they?

I'd say we've got us an old fashioned showdown and it's almost high noon.

*cue "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" music*
Wrong song, Uppie. The High Noon tune . . .

Do not forsake me
Senator Reid
You made this promise
At the polls

You said you'd change
The Senate's posture
No more bent over
No craven cowards
Waiting for Bush to fill your holes.

Best I could do at short notice. :cool:

DR

[Upchurch]

Nice. :D


To answer my own question, I think Bush will have to blink. He needs the money and Congress has the political momentum to keep those strings firmly attached.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Of course a stalemate is always the best result for the American people.

[Solitaire]

Congress could re-write the bill without the deadline, but will they?

Yes, they very well could. Money talks after all. Dollars spent on defense contracts go into companies spread around the country in every congressional district. Besides it's a non-binding resolution. Nothing says "committed" like the world "non-binding." :D

To answer my own question, I think Bush will have to blink. He needs the money and Congress has the political momentum to keep those strings firmly attached.

In 1991 the previous president had nearly a 300 billion dollar defense budget with 2 million troops during that Iraq war. The current president Bush has nearly a 600 billion dollar defense budget and 1 million troops. Oh, I'd say he has got plenty of money to keep this war a going. ;)

[Kerberos]

Yes, they very well could. Money talks after all. Dollars spent on defense contracts go into companies spread around the country in every congressional district. Besides it's a non-binding resolution. Nothing says "committed" like the world "non-binding." :D

I don't know, what about this piece of tough talk:

"here is far less certainty about the next steps in the historic wartime confrontation between Congress and commander in chief. Reid and other Democrats have said repeatedly they will not leave the troops without the funds they need, but they have not said whether they will first force Bush to veto at least one more bill before sending him legislation he finds acceptable."

[Schneibster]

Two points worth mentioning.

Gates blew it; the pResident's Brain wanted to announce the troop deployment extensions later so he could blame it on the Demorats. (No that was not a typo. Nor is it a representation of how I feel- it's a representation of how they appear to think. Note that a "rat" is someone who tells on someone who is doing wrong.)

Apparently, despite the pResident's assertions, the Pentagon has money through June.

[peptoabysmal]

This bill isn't intended to succeed. It is just so that they can claim in the upcoming elections that they tried to stop the war. The Dems now officially own defeat in writing. Any success in Iraq would be bad news for Democrat's political hopes.

[Upchurch]

This bill isn't intended to succeed. It is just so that they can claim in the upcoming elections that they tried to stop the war.
That assumes that the Democrats will immediately follow it up with a bill that doesn't include the various strings. Do you have any reason to assume that this is the case?


The Dems now officially own defeat in writing. Any success in Iraq would be bad news for Democrat's political hopes.Bush owns the defeat. It will take a lot of work to take that from him.

[peptoabysmal]

That assumes that the Democrats will immediately follow it up with a bill that doesn't include the various strings. Do you have any reason to assume that this is the case?
From the story I linked earlier:
There is far less certainty about the next steps in the historic wartime confrontation between Congress and commander in chief. Reid and other Democrats have said repeatedly they will not leave the troops without the funds they need, but they have not said whether they will first force Bush to veto at least one more bill before sending him legislation he finds acceptable.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070423/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_37

That and they all have constituents that they need to satisfy, so they will be pushing a new bill at some time. Was there ever a time a bill was vetoed and then Congress didn't modify the bill and try again? I will admit Bush hasn't used his veto as much as I'd like him to.

Bush owns the defeat. It will take a lot of work to take that from him.
It's not truly a defeat until we surrender, but good one hehe. Maybe I'll change that statement to the Democrats own surrender.

ETA: It baffles me how we can believe we can modify the entire Earth's climate, but can't believe we can get Iraq to a state where it can manage it's violence problem.