yes ur right pm, but look, the president only has 33% of power. wat about the rest 66? they are all going along with this. the whole point in making 3 branches was so no one can overpower anyone. that means most of the congress is with bush. and since the demarcates are all against him, its all the republicans that are backing him up! and btw, how did bush get re elected anywayz? everyone hated him in the election. they were all against him.. its so fishy. newayz, how could a man so stupid that couldnt even pass school without having his parents paying them to pass him do all this sinful stuff on his own? god, how this is going, soon the government is gonna be all corrupt all thanks to bush.
The system was designed for no one branch of federal government to have complete control over everything. However....
- This war was started under the presidential authority to mobilize troops WITHOUT permission from Congress. When this is the case, permission must be granted from Congress within 60 days, or else the troops withdraw.
- At the time, the entire country (minus a few people here and there) was livid about the attacks on our soil, so Congress had no problem "okaying" the move of troops into Afghanistan.
- Later on the Patriot Act was passed. At this time, the country was still largely in a state of fear, and many civilians were willing to turn a blind eye if it helped ease their fear of terrorists lurking among them.
- Since our stay in Afghanistan, (which NATO supposedly supports, I may add) wasn't going to well, "evidence" came out that the "insurgents" in Afghanistan were coming from Iraq and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and terrorists were going to use them against Americans.
- (Some) Time was given for UN Inspectors to go into Iraq--they found nothing. Instead, the US intelligence is so superior, so we decided to invade Iraq, too, and remove Saddam from power.
- The populace, and Congress, later learned that much of the "evidence" used to support the invasion was faulty, and this is about when the outrage started. I believe we invaded Iraq in March 2003, but I could be mistaken. And... given that elections were held in November 2003, I guess that just wasn't enough time for even Republicans to start disliking Bush's war-policy, so the country was largely divided in the next election, and Bush won by a hair. (Yes, I voted, and NOT for Bush.)
- Until mid-elections came around, the Congress was Republican controlled, leaving those who oppose the war pretty helpless to do anything about it.
- Now that there is a Democratic controlled Congress, Bush is vetoing/threatening to veto everything that would dare disrupt his war. Unfortunately, there are not enough people in support of the legislation trying to be passed to over-ride a veto (66% is needed, and they have ~55--the democrats and a couple republicans.)
- So, as we speak, Congress is trying to find compromises, and the Democrats are unable to pass (and over-ride a veto) orders that the troops withdraw. I believe the latest strategy they're going for is to pass a plan to gradually withdraw troops, and they are also waiting until September to see how well the benchmarks they set for Iraq (terms of the "surge") are being met. Most people are already saying that Gen. Patreous's report will go something like: Gains are being met--not as quickly as we'd like--but they are happening. We need more time.
- We, the people, can either sit back and watch and complain, or we can write letters to those who can do something about it.
Oh yes, Congress also tried to cut funding for the war--that debate went on months, and so they gave the war some funds to last until September, at which them they'll deliberate even more about what to do.
The problem, of course, with cutting funds is that is doesn't "support the troops."
Speaking from the experience, it's rather difficult to support the troops and not support the war at the same time.