So Bush wants another $170 billion dollars for the Iraq War?

[kentuck]

Or some such humongous amount. And he doesn't want to pay for it once again? He wants to just add it to the debt? What should the Democrats do about this??

Maybe they inform him that he can have the $170 billion for his war but in return he will have to give up his taxcuts for the wealthy? I know that would be a difficult choice for him but the Democrats should not add another penny to this debt of Bush and the Republicans. There is no free lunch. It's "pay-go". If you want it, you have to pay for it. We will not permit you to add that much more debt t the backs of the American people and especially, the children.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

1. I say

they vote against it until he sets in front of them a budget for the war for the years coming. Additionally that he shows them a plan for a withdrawal in the near future. I don't see congress just rubber stamping this anymore.

You know how GW is going to spin this. He will say look the democratic party hates the troops. No doubt Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly et al will be briefed on this talking point.

[KansDem]

3. I say

Wait until investigations are held to see where the previous monies have gone. If I recall correctly, there are billions missing from previous Iraq budgets. What happened to this money? It appears BushCo is "gettin' out while the gettin's good." In other words, could they be trying to steal as much as possible from the Treasury before the Dems take Congress next month?

No sense giving BushCo more money to give to themselves.

An afterthought: OK, OK, the troops need our support. I'd hate to deny them the necessary budgetary support just to clamp down on BushCo. The GOP will use the "support the troops" mantra in an effort to get their $$$ as well. I just hope that starting next month, BushCo will be held accountable for their crimes.

[European Socialist]

2. Until Bush popularity hits single digits, expect another Dem cave in.

[bullimiami]

4. they need to cut it off. completely. the pentagon has plenty of cash

to bring the troops home in their already over bloated budget.

[calimary]

5. That's what I'd say. Starve the beast.

Choke the money out of it. Hit bush where it's really gonna hurt him - in any arena that involves gushers of money. Anything that funds his habit needs to be gotten rid of.

[Anthony Soprano]

6. The GOP will play both ends against the middle...

Scenario 1: Democrats vote against additional spending, meaning that "Democrats hate our troops" and "Don't want to win in Iraq"

Scenario 2: Democrats vote for additional spending, meaning that the American people voted for Democrats in the midterms under false pretenses ("they don't have a plan for victory in Iraq")

Let's remember that Chris Matthews (and others) are already laying the foundation for this:

From the November 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: It seems to make sense. Two options: get out and avoid any more U.S. casualties; the other option is to stay in long enough to make a difference.

PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC political analyst): That's exactly right.

MATTHEWS: That's 20 years.

JENNY BACKUS (Democratic strategist): That's 20 -- do you want that on the Republican --

BUCHANAN: No. No. American people aren't -- look, you ain't got 20 years. The American people won't support 20 years. What I'm saying is --

MATTHEWS: What can you --

BACHUS: They don't support it now.

MATTHEWS: -- what can you get done in two or three?

BUCHANAN: I don't know what you can get done in two or three. But I do know, if you do not go right now, it'd be insane. This thing may go down. It will go down in a bloody, horrible massacre and a break-up, for sure, if we turn around and pull out now.

BACKUS: But we have 150,000 American troops in the middle of that bloody massacre.

MATTHEWS: I'm afraid that now is always going to be now. Six months from now, it'll be now.

BUCHANAN: Well, if the Democrats --

MATTHEWS: Two years from now, it'll be now. Every time we have this conversation --

BUCHANAN: If -- well, Chris --

MATTHEWS: -- somebody says we can't move immediately, and that is always the future that keeps regressing from us.

BUCHANAN: -- if the Democrats -- all right, if the Democrats believe that -- if Democrats believe that, why don't they cut off any more funds for the war?

MATTHEWS: Because they're not policymakers. Thank you, Pat Buchanan. They don't want to be policymakers -- that's grown-up stuff.

BUCHANAN: That's exactly right.

MATTHEWS: They sit in the front seat. They'd rather sit in the back seat and complain, "Mommy, when we getting there?" "She just punched me."

BACKUS: That's not true.

MATTHEWS: That is the Democrats.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611280011

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Let him have it AS LONG AS he

first provides an accurate accounting of prior monies allocated for this endeavor. And I don't mean Arthur Anderson as the CPA . . .

[AndyA]

8. Bush needs to account for the billions that have gone missing in Iraq, first.

No more money until he shows that all previous funds have been spent wisely.

Then rescind the tax cuts for the wealthy, and make them RETROACTIVE because it was a stupid idea in the first place. Bush's economic policies have made the wealthy hyper-wealthy, so they don't need tax cuts.

Bush is an idiot.

Investigate - then IMPEACH.

[whistle]

9. Cut of the funding now

[pnwmom]

10. He can have whatever he needs

to paying for bringing the troops back home.