Retired military DUer: "If I was active duty, I'd never vote Dem again if they cut off our funding."

[brentspeak]

That's a paraphrase of something another DUer, retired Navy, posted a couple months back.

So if the Democrats in Congress, as a bloc, approve Bush's funding request, you'll understand why: cutting off funding is not as simple as it seems.

[mmonk]

1. perceptions are not truth.

[G_j]

5. right answer n/t

[brentspeak]

7. Unfortunately, wrong perceptions can be made to appear to be the truth

i.e. "I'm a uniter, not a divider!" And a thousand other Bush White Hose proclamations and promises. People actually bought them.

[porphyrian]

2. That's why the lie of it needs to be dispelled - it's not cutting off funding for the troops.

It's cutting off funding for the "surge," the unnecessary aggression that should never have begun in the first place. The troops will still get paid, and won't be any less safe than they are now. It would simply force the powers that be to redeploy them.

[peace13]

3. Fund the withdrawal. Problem solved. n/t

[Just-plain-Kathy]

14. Yes, we should fund only the safe return of our troops and nothing else! ..n/t

[Swamp Rat]

24. Here ya go:

[peace13]

38. Too cool. Thanks Swamp Rat. n/t

[Mountainman]

4. Cutting funding for a war is not cutting funding for troops if the troops are not in the war.

We need to start reducing the number of troops in the war as we reduce the spending on the war. It is a simple matter of planning and executing the plan. Congress needs to design the plan since the misadministration is unwilling to.

[earthside]

16. Cut Funding for Occupation

This happened Wednesday in Thornton, Colorado.

One of our Democratic Congressmembers (who is running for the U.S. Senate in 2008), held a town hall meeting. At one point he asked the people in the audience who supported "cutting off the funding for the troops" to raise their hands.

It was galling to hear a Democratic officeholder using the same propaganda lines as Bush and Faux News ... but that's what he did.

This from a supposedly liberal Congressman ... he knows better. It is about cutting off the money for the occupation, not the troops. Everyone seems to "get it" except people like this in Congress.

With Bush now talking about a strategic pact with the Iraq 'government' that could keep a U.S. military presence there forever, the Dems better wise up quick or their Congressional approval numbers are going to reach historic lows.

[EFerrari]

26. Cutting off the war funding is NOT defunding the troops.

That's right.

[T Wolf]

6. As opposed to leaving the future-corpses on the battlefield forever.

Retired is the key term. These retired ones, if they actually exist, are not stuck in the desert.

[acmavm]

8. Why do people not realize that there is funding. There's plenty

of money in the OBSCENELY HUGE Pentagon request. So if the troops need money the military should just be prepared to give up their 900,000 dollar screws and 5000 hammers.

edit: Then it would put the lack of funding right where it belongs. In the bush** administration's lap.

[tridim]

9. So I take it he'd rather go with Bush's plan to stay forever?

I think active duty soldiers would rather come home.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The same could be said if they DON'T cut off the funding.

I wasn't a lifer but put in my four years and that's what I say.

[go west young man]

34. I also put in four years and I say cut the funding.

It's an illegal immoral invasion using terrorism as a ruse in order to steal Iraqi oil. We don't deserve to win. We never have. WE are complicit in the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people. The rest of the world knows this. We are the only country still in the dark. Thanks to our crap media.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

11. Dems have to do a media blitz to explain...

...how the money hasn’t been going to the troops....that most of the money goes to defense and construction contractors.

The public would believe that the money doesn’t go to our troops or our vets. It’s well known that our soldiers had to arm their own vehicles, and that vet Hospitals like Walter Reed can’t afford to maintain itself.

[brentspeak]

41. That's what they should do.

I have no idea why the Democrats haven't organized a press conference in front of the Capital Building to do just that.

[Justitia]

12. Sorry, that DUer has fallen for RW spin. He should examine the issue more carefully, in detail -nt

[TahitiNut]

13. It seems Democracy is an IQ test .... and we fail.

:shrug:

There's really no known cure for stupid - especially stupid like Bush-stupid.

[NuttyFluffers]

43. and you'd think the 1/2 trillion dollar elephant in the room would be seen...

pfft, 'defund the troops' my ass! shit, with the amount of money in that budget i can literally fund a cruise ship, staffed with pro sports cheerleaders, vegas showgirls, and chippendale dancers, for each and every squad to bring them back home. and i'd still have money left over keep all of our bases functioning AND build several bridges to nowhere!

please, why in the hell should we all be held hostage to stupid voting from people who can't count?? yeah, better let the soldiers die 'cause "bob in his easy chair" might be a pissy voter. y'know how he can't figure out the difference between $500 billion and zero 'n all.

yeah, there's a winning strategy, let's put all our chips upon petulant rantings of reactionary boobs.

:eyes:

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Can someone explain to me why dems can't vote for the spending

ON THE CONDITION OF ACCOUNTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE FUNDS?!!! I'm talking about stuff like invoices going to congressional committees and the GAO for review and challenge.

No more palates of shrink-wrapped hundred-dollar bills that get "lost".

Stuff like that.

[frogcycle]

22. those conditions already exist and are being ignored

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. If that DUer is in support of the war overall, I'd discount that opinion. Plus, if they are not,

I'd like to know what they'd recommend be done to put an end to this, other than wait 10 years for veto proof majorities in Congress and a Democrat in the White House.

[bemildred]

18. I'm sure the Republicans will be glad to have his support. nt

[Solly Mack]

19. and my husband is active duty and won't vote for those who continue to fund it

and he knows the troops (and not just the troops) are paying either way for the crimes and corruption of our government

for people to delude themselves into thinking the government gives a damn about the troops is a wonder to behold.

The troops wouldn't be in Iraq if the US government gave a damn about the troops

for my government - and anyone in it - to pretend they care at this point is laughable

to pretend it is (the funding "debate") about protecting the troops is laughable

[halobeam]

23. what are the best facts to give someone who thinks the funding

would be protecting the troops? Are there document links? I'd like to have a fist full of handouts how this "cutting the funding" is going to stop the occupation, getting our troops home and in the meanwhile will NOT stop giving them what they are already getting (AND not getting.)

[Solly Mack]

30. Well, we could start with the defense budget since the invasion began

and everythng the troops weren't getting with all that money in play...(supposedly funding the troops)


For the Record, Mr Bush.

[Liberal Dose]

20. I would understand this point of view if the funding were actually for our troops n/t

[frogcycle]

21. Jim Webb has the best answer

Make mandatory controls on time between deployments and length of deployment.
I would add a cap on use of national guard as a percentage of troops deployed. You just can't have the entire active duty army and marines at home with 130000 National Guard called up.

That will mandate a major drawdown, which will mandate a major redefinition of the mission.

They caved on this last time. bush used the excuse of "pork" and other stuff to veto the bill. Send him a bill that provides funding for the troops in theatre, but also says you can't extend them further and you can't send them back early. Then if you do the math, the bottom line is when they come home after 15 months there is nobody to replace them. Make that the ONLY caveat on the funding. Last time the republicans tried to say that was congress tinkering with "troop deployment strategy" as if they were dictating how many should be sent to what areas. That is false. Let the military decide how many they want where, but just don't let them abuse people. The result will be they will HAVE to decide to not do certain things, like police activities. They will HAVE to focus limited resources on force protection and specific anti-terrorist activities. They will HAVE to work with fewer and fewer in theatre.

You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had!


Or a draft, which would still take too long to have any impact.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Agree with Webb on this. Totally disagree about a draft. nt

[frogcycle]

36. I was not proposing a draft

just saying that would be bush's only recourse and it would never pass and even if it did it would not solve his immediate problem that like Old Mother Hubbard, his cupboard is bare.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. True enough. nt

[madfloridian]

25. It is their constitutionally given power. It is their job.

Who's advising Congress not to use their constitutional power of the purse?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1385

Feingold said it well:

"....."The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power “to declare War,” “to raise and support Armies,” “to provide and maintain a Navy” and “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” In addition, under Article I, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these powers were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define and, ultimately, to end a war.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Because it's quite obvious that Bush doesn't give a #$% about

the actual troops, and that he'd quite happily leave them there to starve and die without equipment, etc., simply to make his point and stick it to the Dems.

It's the Democrats problem all along: when the other party doesn't care, simply does not care about anything you do, how in the world do you negotiate anything? They'll always have the upper hand. Where's our leverage?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

29. "Is it too late to re-fund the Vietnam war?" -ex-military DUer,

me.

[spanone]

31. maybe their families would thank the dems

[ljm2002]

32. This is not a time for political cowardice...

...what is needed now is a way out of this fiasco, and to do so in a way that attempts to minimize the remaining ill effects of this misbegotten invasion and occupation. There are many constructive things that can be done right now, in order to pave the way for a more honorable withdrawal than the situation we are now in. It requires vision, and not operating in fear of who will and will not vote for you.

I'm not criticizing your post or your friend's position. Just saying that it's anecdotal, and I'll bet even your friend would think again if the Dems led the way in salvaging this war, such as ensuring that Iraq really is rebuilt, and that there are peacekeeping forces there when we leave, and actively pledging our monetary assistance in these enterprises.

Or maybe not. But like I said, this is not a time for political cowardice nor for pandering to anyone's vote. It is a time for vision and for moral clarity, to borrow a phrase.

[Quixote1818]

33. Plus Bush would keep them there anyway. He is that nuts! nt

[KharmaTrain]

35. Interesting C-SPAN Caller This Morning

The lady said she lived in Alabama and that her husband, son and daughter are, or have been deployed...and how the batallions based nearby are exhausted from the 12 and 15 month repeated deployments and extended "contracts". She claimed she was a lifelong Repugnican, but her hatred for this war was "forcing" her to vote for Democrats next year. Methinks this is a growing feeling within the military.

I recall the most loyal GOOP voters were in the military...especially in 2000 and 2002. I kept hearing how "clinton ruined the military" and how Repugnicans were the "pro-military" party (no gays). I didn't hear that in '06...and polls have shown a change in the political attitudes among the military.

The rub Democrats have to climb over...and not sure there are enough with spines to do this...is detach support for this ugly invasion as "supporting the troops". One major meme this week...highlighted by the "outrage" over the MoveOn ad was a vain attempt by the Repugnicans to pretend they're still "supporting the troops" and that any timelines or reductions in funding is a sign of us "abandoning the troops". This meme has been hammered hard and it's intended to put Democrats in a box. Joe Biden bit hard at it yesterday when I heard him say again he'd never vote for or against a plan that would "defund the troops". Be assured that's the first thing Repugnicans would scream...now how do Democrats counter?

[frogcycle]

42. Biden told a pretty passionate story

of his last visit to Iraq. They showed him an MRAP that had an IED go off under it. It was blown into the air high enough to hit and break power lines. The four soldiers who had been in it were the ones who showed it to him. They were fine. In and uparmored humvee they'd have been just body parts.

He fought tooth and nail to get funding for MRAPs and get them expedited. A big chunk of that 160B is going toward that. I can't argue with him that as long as they are there, sending them MRAPs, body armor, whatever can be done to protect them is our obligation. Given that bush and his corrupt cabal control how the budget is spent, it is tough to figure out how to force his hand without having him just say "fine, then, no more MRAPs!" or food, or bullets, or whatever.

Dealing with a sociopath is hard work.

The counter is Jim Webb's plan - mandatory limits on deployments, mandatory breaks between deployments. Those are CLEARLY pro-troop. No argument. Period. And they accomplish the purpose, because there are no replacements available. Rapid drawdown becomes mandatory.

[kineneb]

37. "funding" is not going to troops, is going to contractors

Haliburton, KBR, etc. Troops get shoddy armor, bad food while no-bid contractors make billions.

[brentspeak]

40. I know. The whole thing is a scam.

But the Democrats know the Republicans will simply spin it as "The Democrats cut off funding from our troops."

[B Calm]

44. I'm a veteran and I want the funding stopped right fucking now!

[frylock]

45. i hope he doesn't let the door hit him