Poll: If the Dems cut off the funding, and stayed firm - would

[jillan]

the Idiot in Chief:

The reason I ask this question is because I believe that even if the Dems + 17 R's cut off funding (which is what they need to override a veto),
didn't back down....
It still wouldn't end the war.

What are your thoughts?

[baldguy]

1. Why do you think opium production in Afghanistan is increasing?

[orpupilofnature57]

4. For the same reason we're in Iraq $$$$$$$$$$$$$

[ShortnFiery]

2. The problem is far more complex than this simplistic poll ...

How 'bout none of the above? :(

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Other - War is a result of funds being spent on weapons and troops..

they could cut the legs off those funds ,and Transportation could be our realistic Productive and ATTAINABLE goal ,but only after Shrubs IMPEACHMENT !

[catlbob]

5. Not even a majority is needed

If the Speaker doesn't let an appropriations bill reach the House floor, there is nothing to veto.

No vote on the silly poll.

[Vincardog]

6. Bingo right in one

[AndyTiedye]

7. He Will Make The Troops Suffer Even More so He Can Blame the Democrats for their Suffering

[jillan]

11. That is exactly what I think.

[gateley]

8. K&R. Excellent question. I'm ashamed to say I haven't given much thought

to what would happen if that occurred.

[Honeycombe8]

9. The Dems have enough votes to pass bills and budgets, but not enough votes

to override *, correct?

So the Dems can't really cut off funding. The most they can do is VOTE to cut off funding, knowing that funding won't really be cut. The Dems don't have enough votes to override anything that * does, correct?

But does the budget work in a different way than bills, so that a minority can prevent the budget from being "enacted"?

[ck4829]

10. No, they have to vote to continue funding

A budget is an opt in thing. If they can't pass a budget for something then there won't be a budget for it at all.

[Honeycombe8]

24. I see. It works differently than for bills, then. Very interesting. So the Dems DO have some

power in that regard.

[ginchinchili]

12. Thanks, pirhana. To win this election we have to deal w/reality

The idea to cut funding to end this war is the result of desperation, certainly understandable. But it's not a very good way for the Democrats to end this war. We wouldn't accomplish our purpose, it would only give Republicans a weapon to use against the Democrats while trying to paint them as anti-military. The war will continue into the next president term, and if we choose the wrong Democratic candidate and lose the election, the war will continue and we will officially be engaged in an act of pure imperialism.

Joe Biden's plan is responsible, can disarm Republican attacks, and get us out of Iraq. He can win this thing by convincing enough Americans to handle Iraq his way. We can do this. We can do this.

[catlbob]

26. Requiring redeployment, troop cuts and a timeline

Isn't a cut in funding. I GWB wants his money, he merely has to agree. He just can't have another blank check.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. I keep saying that my Congressman has said that...

it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if they cut off war funding because:

1.) Money is fungible, and they would take what they need out of other budgets.

2.) Cutting off funding doesn't mean they just leave-- it will cost at least as much to get them out of there, which could take a year, as it does to keep them there.

Of course, every time I mention this, it just sinks like a stone. Really, why would my liberal, Democratic Congressman know more about this than than DUers? He must be wrong.

[PatSeg]

15. That's about the size of it

Bush will find the money and probably take it from places that will damage this country even more.

Jim Webb's amendment is a good one though. It would cut back troops by giving them more time off between deployments. If Bush opposes it, then HE is not supporting the troops. Of course, it has been said that he will just borrow more troops from the reserves and National Guard.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Only problem with that is...

it sets up a Constitutional battle over the president as CIC with Congress trying to tell him how to run the war.

Maybe it could work, though. Who knows... Stranger things happen down there in DC.

[PatSeg]

19. "Stranger things happen"

Especially considering the last six and half years!

[jillan]

18. Webb's amendment is our best hope

Because if the repugs vote against it, it will show ONE more time that they really don't support the troops - and that would be a present to all the dems during an election year.

And this legislation really has a hidden agenda.
We don't have enough troops to cover during the longer breaks, so less troops will be able to deploy.

I heard a great discussion about this on AAR on Thurs. ;)

[sandnsea]

22. But it won't end the war

Gates has already said the legislation will harm the troops, force him to get more troops from the Guard and Reserves. If we're going to take the heat, we may as well pass legislation that will accomplish something. I think Webb just can't stand the idea of being labeled part of the anti-war protesters.

[renie408]

20. I feel your pain.

I want to run screaming around the house every time I read a post where somebody here just KNOWS something, contrary to all the evidence. And every time the Dem leadership isn't following their advice to the letter, it's because they are all a bunch of corrupt, dickless, Republican wannabes. It really boggles the mind.

[demommom]

21. bullseye!!

[sandnsea]

14. permanent bases

don't require emergency funding. That's how he'll keep his war going.

[Capn Sunshine]

17. Great article on this

By Ted Rall outlining his take on the Dems propagation of the myth they can't do anything.

[regnaD kciN]

23. None of the above...

It's a hypothetical question -- because our congresscritters will never cut off the funding, and never stand firm. :grr:

[treestar]

25. Halliburton et al would have to fund its own security

Instead of taking it from the taxpayers in the most blatant form of corporate welfare imaginable.