Did congress buckle under to Bush?

Or is it that he has his own plans for a change in Iraq, but it is going to be under his terms, not the lawmakers.





In my own humble opinion, GW held out and would not sign anything with a timetable for withdrawal mainly because he wanted to remind the congress and senate exactly who the Commander and Chief still is.

Did congress buckle under to Bush?
Well Congress was trying to invade into the political powers of the execuative branch. Stupid libs seem to forget that for war Congress only has the power of the purse. That is because the founding fathers knew that Congress would always be full of morons which follow public opinion and know nothing of war.
Reply:No, but congressional democrats lied to the American people by saying they could end the war and they have no authority to do so, and Americans bought into the lie.
Reply:Because they are finding out what the truth is!!!
Reply:They didn't buckle. This was the plan. We just have new actors in Congress.
Reply:An ex-Texas female governor once stated: "poor George, it's not his fault he was born with a silver foot in his mouth".


This is exactly why we are where we're at now.................
Reply:No, it's nothing like that. George Bush isn't that smart.











But when you look at it, there is a time line; the budget. That $100 billion is the time line. And that $100 billion was agreed on only as long as benchmarks were set and goals were met. Congress is not bowing to Bush; Bush is bowing to Congress.











Also, don't forget that Congress can still end this war whenever they want to. If things don't change, they'll de-authorize the war.














So, it's like I said. Bush is bowing to Congress. I see this summer him coming back and asking for more. There isn't a blank check anymore. This war, for the first time, might be managed the right way, even though the war itself is completely wrong.



myspace quizzes