Doesn't congress have control over the budget? If they wanted to end the war, couldn't they just cut off funds?

Then the Dems would be viciously attacked for not supporting the troops. It's not something that they can do for political reasons, not that those political reasons are actually valid excuses.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

I also used to think they had control over sending us to war.

__________________
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Disclaimer:
I do not support McCain or Obama, please refrain from making the assumption that because I post something negative about your candidate, that I must be supporting the other. We do have more than 2 people running for president.

So there's like an Alpha dog thing going on, and Bush is the Alpha male... that's sorta ironic.

Yup. And the Dems won't do that due to the political repurcussions. They'd much rather send our servicemen and women off to die than risk losing their cushy seats. And face it; if they actually forced the war to end then they'd have one less thing to make hay about.

And yes, Congress has the sole power to declare war, but this isn't a "war" in the legal sense. We haven't fought a legitemate "war" since WWII because the Congress merely passes the buck to the President. Like all politicians, they want authority but aren't so keen on responsibility.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto
-Proof-hunter

Ventura/ Paul '12

Ahahaaha wow that sheds new light on the situation for me. It's all a Us. Vs. Them. title fight, and nobody's winning.

They would need 2/3 of the congres to go along with it, and there's not that many democrats. I think that's the way it works, that's usually how it works everywhere else.

It's also the fact that the executive branch has rapidly increased it's power since the end of WW2. Therefore, in reality the President is more powerful than the legislator and this is seen through the powers of the executive. For example, the President can veto anything Congress wants and vice versa but Congress could overturn a veto with a 2/3 majority. However the Supreme Court is appointed by the President and we all know that the Supreme Court have a final say over all laws.....

Congress is a mere talking shop and when WW2 happened and prompted an 'army' of bureaucrats to be hired to deal with mobilizing the country for war, another layer of government was added overnight. Very little of this 'army' was demobilized and continues to overhang politics in Washington. The interesting thing is that because the President put this group into power, they have remained dedicated to empowering the executive no matter who the President is. Eisenhower warned us about it, he called it the Military-Industrial Complex....

__________________
I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
You may bury my body, down by the highway side,
so my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride.
You and I must fight to survive

Sure they could, they just don't want to.

__________________
"I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy."
-Sen. John McCain 09/22/2008

The Dem. Party is a big tent. We've got lots of so called Blue Dog Dems. and guys like Lieberman (R-Israel) in the Party. Mary Landreu from LA is one of 'em. Those are people who represent states or districts that are more conservative than their elected representative. We blame 'em, but in a way they are just doing their job.

__________________
"I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy."
-Sen. John McCain 09/22/2008