Democrats 'capitulated' to the troops, not to Bush. He doesn't give a damn about funding.

[bigtree]

The funding is for the soldiers who are left in harm's way because of the FAILURE of legislators to support a timetable in numbers which would advance in legislation to Bush's desk. Democrats have not withdrawn their objections to the occupation, and intend to continue to work to get the necessary amount of votes to send legislation to Bush's desk which can't be successfully vetoed.

All they did was follow through on their promise that their political efforts to move Bush would not put the money for the troops already deployed in jeopardy.

If they want a timetable that is in a bill that has enough votes to be something more than just a protest vote, they will have to convince republicans to vote with them. They don't need to use the funding the troops need, expect, and deserve as leverage. That effort failed to get the necessary amount of support to effect anything significant, anyway. It's not like just passing another bill without a veto-proof margin was going to move Bush off of his occupation anytime soon. The effort failed, and folks are hollering for our Democratic majority to stick to that failure, no matter how ineffective it has been so far.

There have been several posts and reports (GAO, etc.) which suggest that Bush can find the funds to limp our troops along without any action by Congress. That's as clear a demonstration as anything how weak the present 'defunding' strategy is/was.

Bush never cared at all about fully funding the troops he's deployed, so it's not accurate to call this a victory for Bush. The funding bills which Democrats have presented so far contain priorities which responsible members of our party who care as much about ending the occupation as we do have determined are essential. Many of those which were requested by the administration were increased to make them match the actual needs of these troops already in harm's way. These are Democratic funding initiatives which encompass all of the items and concerns neglected for four years of republican rule while our troops have been deployed; not Bush's.

If we want to pass a timetable we should work to get the votes in Congress to do just that, without using troop funding as leverage. That course is mostly unsupportable in this Congress and has proved ineffective in moving Bush. Who in this administration or Pentagon did folks expect to take notice and care about troop shortages enough to get them to end the occupation?

I'm happy that Democrats are moving forward with their promise to provide funding, no matter what the state of politics in Washington might be at the time. They provided the funding in the rejected 'timetable' bill, and now they are, as promised, putting it in a legislative form which will get enough votes to pass it on. All of that doesn't mean the end to their opposition. Democrats will continue to look for other leverage to move Bush and his republican enablers.

It does (thankfully) mean that the troops' needs will be addressed and allocated while the stalemate continues. These soldiers are working 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. They don't deserve to have to wait until Bush relents to receive the money for the priorities our own party has identified as essential and lacking.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Beelzebud]

1. The troops are never in danger of being denied things they need.

Even if the war is defunded, the troops won't be. We won't take all their equipment and tell them to swim back to America.

It's a god damned rightwing meme that if we defund this war that the troops will just be stranded in Iraq with no resources.

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. ...

:thumbsup: I can't believe some continue too fall for this line of Bu$hit! :crazy:

[treestar]

53. I remember a lot of stories about their lacking things and their

families buying things for them.

Wasn't it something to do with the flak jackets or some other type of armor?

* doesn't care about that, but he does care about using the troops as a leverage to guilt his opponents.

So really not funding them could be much worse, handing him that on a silver platter.

[EFerrari]

57. But that's the job. The troops have never been treated well

by Bush or the Bush Pentagon. All the more reason to bring them home now.

[Pale Blue Dot]

2. So, do you believe EVERY Republican talking point, or just this one? nt

[Lerkfish]

3. bravo! pithy and concise.

[bigtree]

7. ignorant

and insulting.

[bigtree]

6. actually these are Democratic priorities in the bill

included by anti-occupation patriots like John Murtha.

So much for the childish name-calling

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. LOL

How true.

[bigtree]

56. you know me personally then?

If you did, you would know that I have no use at all for republican talking points. These are my own views, expressed as sincerely as I am able.

But, don't let all of that stop you from deciding whatever you want about me and calling it truth.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. Spout one of their talking points and this is the reaction you get.

Surely you can understand that.

[bigtree]

90. they don't own the language or the sentiment

[fasttense]

4. That money is for Halliburton and other defense contractors.

The bushes aren't funding the troops.

They give the troops just the bare minimum like they do all their employees.

That's why the troops' rotations are ignored, their water is contaminated, they are fed expired food, they don't have body armour or helmets and only recently have Humvees been properly armored. Hell, some troops were sent over there with minimal training and no weapons. They give the absolute bare minimum to the troops while defense contractors are raking in billions.

If congress outlawed defense contractors the Iraq occupation would end yesterday.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. Exactly! nt

[bowens43]

5. Absolute nonsense.

If the Democrats cared about the troops, they wouldn't fund the war. Period. It's really that simple. Apparently the Dems are trying to have their cake and eat it too. I'm not buying it. They are worried about possible political repercussions, not the welfare of the troops or the Iraqi people.

The Democrats are kneeling down before Dear Leader just like the republicans did

[bigtree]

12. why is it assumed that we should have troops in the field without necessary funds?

and that properly equipping the troops amounts to supporting the mission?

We could have a vote for timetables or withdrawal (if we had the support) and still effect that withdrawal no matter how much money has been allocated. Just providing money to keep the troops safe and secure while there is a stalemate doesn't restrict us from continuing to press for timetables, voting for them, and putting them into effect.

[ieoeja]

62. Actually, it is assumed that we would NOT have troops in the field without any funds.

You seem to be looking at this backwards. Without the funds, the troops come home. You think they're just going to hold bake sales, maybe raffle off a few tanks?

[bigtree]

65. I've seen several scenarios presented that would allow Bush to continue

at least in the short term.

What happens to those troops left in Iraq because of our inability to convince congressional republicans to join in restraining him?

[ieoeja]

68. Whatever Bush did to them.

I suppose he could order them all to use clubs to fight. But it wouldn't be congress giving that order. It would be the Commander In Chief. If he chooses to fight without bullets then that is HIS decision, noone else's.

[mmonk]

10. Again, there is no danger the troops won't be funded.

This (defunding means cutting off the troops from funds) is the republican twist that has been successful in perception so far.

[bigtree]

13. Our own party has identified shortages which are being addressed in the funding legislation

our own party has identified these, led by anti-occupation patriots like John Murtha. Concern for the well-being of the troops, and awareness of the neglect from the republican majority for four years doesn't come from republicans. These are our own party's concerns which WE addressed in OUR funding bills.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. $100 billion worth?

[bigtree]

19. It's not all destined for Iraq

Is the amount of money really the issue?

These troops can pick up and come home if Congress decides to come together and mandate it no matter how much money is allocated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Giving Bush more money to prosecute the war isn't bringing the troops home.

It's downright Orwellian. The cry that the troops have to be supported or they'll be left without necessities is a nonsensical cop-out.

The Pentagon is awash in money given them by the same politicians who are funding the war. The bulk of the money isn't destined to buy the troops toothpaste or body armor or any of the multitude of gadgets to make them better killers. It's going to fund the continuation of the war.

[bigtree]

33. He's only allowed to continue because Congress hasn't set a deadline for withdrawal

not because the troops already deployed are intended by Democrats to have the supplies and equipment they need to keep them safe and secure.

[ieoeja]

66. You mean if the REPUBLICANS in Congress join us?

First, we would need a veto proof majority in both houses. Second, we don't even have a simple majority in the Senate. A vote along party lines to bring them home in the Senate would go:

Yay - 48(D) + 1(I) = 49
Nay - 49(R) + 1(I) = 50

Even forcing the ailing Tim Johnson to vote would only give us a tie with Cheney ($) the tie-breaker.

[bigtree]

70. right. republicans have to be forced to come off of their obstruction

and join with Democrats to put an end to Bush's fiasco.

If they don't, the occupation won't end.

[MadHound]

11. The supplemental funding bills are NOT for "supporting the troops" or "addressing their needs"

That funding comes from the 532.8 billion dollar annual defense budget(which is actually a low ball figure, since much of the defense budget involves black box ops that even Congress can't know, just blindly vote on).

The supplemental funding bills are for prosecuting the war, to keep the killing going. End those, hold them up in committee(no vote needed, just a spine), and you bring the war to an end.

I don't know why you are trying to complicate this matter, or continously posting BS talking points, but even you should realize that you're only fooling yourself.

The Dems have let us down. Instead of following the mandate of the people, they have decided to play politics with peoples lives. This is an unconsciencable action, and should not be rewarded.

[bigtree]

17. We've seen the priorities which our own party have identified as necessary

for the safety, security, and well-being of the troops already deployed. What you've said here is just rhetoric. These troops are mostly in defensive positions against folks bent on their destruction. Their exit from Iraq is not pending, and would not be coming home anytime soon, despite the legislative effort which just failed. In the meantime, these funding priorities which our own party has identified and highlighted remain unfulfilled. Just funding the soldiers while they are deployed doesn't preclude anyone from voting for timetables down the road. If there is a sufficient amount of support forthcoming then the full-funded troops would come home. It would make no difference at all that they were properly equipped and supplied. If Congress finally comes together and decides to bring them home they'll bring their full-funded selves back.

[MadHound]

20. No, it isn't just rhetoric, it is the only way to bring the troops home ASAP

You know, that major reason why those Dem majorities were voted in last fall? The Dems can propose timetable after timetable and all that will happen is that Bush will continue to veto them, especially now that he knows that the Dems will cave time and again and continue to fund the troops with no strings attached.

Holding up these supplemental war funding bills is the quickest, most viable way of bringing the troops home. It doesn't require a vote nor Bush's signature. All it requires is for the Dems to show a spine, not back down or cave in. And as the war funding runs low, Bush will be forced to bring the troops home. This tactic has been used before, it is time to dust it off and use it again.

It is time to stop playing politics with people's lives, time to stop putting elections ahead of doing the right and moral thing. It is time to bring the troops home, and defunding this war will do that. Any action short of that is immoral and doesn't support the troops, only exposes them to more danger needlessly and recklessly.

[sharp_stick]

22. Actually they were voted in because of repuke corruption

as much as the war if not more. Now if only we can convince them to add some teeth to the corruption bills they may have something to move forward on.

[MadHound]

26. I beg your pardon, but in all of the analysis and post mordems that I've seen on the '06 election

The over-riding factor that Dems were voted into majority status was the public wanted the war ended ASAP. If you don't believe me, simply do some googling and you'll find out real quick that corruption was a distant second at best.

The war was and is the overriding issue on Americans minds.

[bigtree]

23. there's no evidence at all that just holding up a supplemental would move Bush

And you talk about playing politics with people's lives??!! What the hell is it to bargain with funds which are intended to keep the troops safe and secure? That's playing with lives.

There are plenty of ways Bush can manipulate funds to keep troops in Iraq 'as long as he's president' if Congress doesn't pass a veto-proof bill mandating withdrawal. Providing funds to the troops wouldn't preclude any such bill. They can be withdrawn just as well with the equipment and supplies they need as they can without those essentials.

I'm more than glad that some in our party are moving away from this cynical strategy. You can continue to insist that funding the troops equals prolonging the occupation. But the ONLY thing which is prolonging it is the reluctance of republicans to join in supporting the majority of Democrats who are pushing for timetables for withdrawal.

[MadHound]

32. And again you are confusing two different funding sources. Is that deliberate on your part?

Or do you simply not read people who post rational logical thought directed your way?

Let me explain this to you one more time. The annual military budget, all 532.8 billion dollars of it this year, is the money that is designated to "keep the troops safe and secure" That is the pool of money out of which troop pay, supplies, armor, etc. is drawn. That money cannot really be fucked with by Bush in any meaningful way. He cannot draw money out of this appropriated budget item, for if he did so he would be breaking the law and the 'Pugs would be filing for impeachment.

It is the supplemental war funding bill that actually provides the money with which to prosecute this illegal, immoral war. If you cut that off, there is no money to continue the fighting in and occupation of Iraq. It wouldn't matter what Bush wanted or desired, the economic, political, and legal reality is that he would be forced to bring the troops home.

Congress has defunded wars before and it didn't cause the troops any harm nor put them in any extra danger. It simply brought them home.

So please, stop pushing this false meme of yours. Down your path of endless funding and waiting for Republicans to do something lies endless war and the needless deaths of thousands upon thousands of people. Is this what you really want? Do you really want to continue to play politics with people's lives? I certainly hope not, but that is where the path that you recommend leads. Think about it.

[bigtree]

38. You are misrepresenting what has been presented in the Democratic funding bills

Bush has already pulled from the general Defense budget, with permission, twice, to the tune of about $4 billion, so the stuff about it being illegal for him to do so is a moot point. He can juggle funds, He has, and he will continue to do so.

Until Bush is directed by Congress, in legislation, in numbers sufficient to overcome a veto, to withdraw by a date certain, he will never leave Iraq "so long as he's president."

And I think your attack on me as if I was "pushing" something pernicious and misleading just because you disagree with me is despicable. I'm not "playing" with anyone's life. I'm trying to preserve life. I'm expressing my opinion that these funds are necessary. My views are shared by more than a few legislators and activists who are as concerned as you are with peoples' lives. Your attacks on my integrity are bullshit.

[MadHound]

44. Four billion in discretionary funds, out of what, 532.8 billion. Big whoop

And like you said, he had to get permission to do so. He can't just grab with both hands whenever he wants to. There is still accountability.

There is absolutely no way in hell that he could fund his war out of the military budget, he needs those supplementals to keep his war on.

And if defunding is such a wrong headed tactic as you claim, how come it has worked before?

And frankly, if you were so damned concerned about the troops, then you would realize that bringing them home is the best way of supporting them. Instead you keep pushing for endless funding for an endless war that continues to eat up endless lives, both Iraqis and our soldiers. How is that "supporting" them?

[bigtree]

47. who the hell said I didn't want to bring them home?

that's just an argument made against my position to make folks feel like they are more concerned with the withdrawal of the troops than I am. I advocate everyday against the occupation. I don't believe that allowing funding for the troops to go forward is support for 'endless war'. That's just rhetorical nonsense you're using to elevate your argument and to belittle me in mine.

[MadHound]

55. No funding, no war, it is that simple.

You continue to advocate for these supplemental war funding bills, so what other conclusion am I supposed to reach?:shrug:

Your only solution is to wait and hope that Republicans come around to supporting a timeline:eyes: Might as well be talking about endless war friend, for that is never going to happen.

Gee, how well have all those other supplemental war funding bill done in supporting the troops? What, 3400 plus have died, tens of thousands wounded, yeah, that supplemental war funding is really supporting the troops there pal.:eyes:

[bigtree]

58. The supplementals are the result of the troops already having been deployed.

The occupation didn't begin with a supplemental. It began by Bush directing the troops into harm's way. The money allocated is necessary to keep our troops safe and secure while they are deployed. None of those funds allocated would preclude Congress from voting for a timetable for withdrawal. None of those funds are an obstacle to republicans stepping up and voting for a withdrawal. The occupation will not end until republicans step up and vote for a withdrawal.

[MadHound]

59. So in essence you ARE supporting endless war!

Waiting for Republicans to step up and vote for a timetable, all the while continuing to pass these supplemental war funding bills is a recipe for endless war, plain pure and simple.

Yes, Bush, with the help of the Dems who voted for the IWR, got us into this war. However by passing these supplementals time and time again, the Dems are enabling the president and are needlessly keeping our troops in harm's way. As I've said before, the money isn't for "keeping our troops safe and secure" it is for the ongoing prosecution of this illegal, immoral war.

If we take away these supplementals, Bush would be forced to bring the troops home, no Republicans needed. It worked before friend, and it can work again. All we need is a collective Democratic spine.

[bigtree]

60. you ignore the fact that the failed efforts you support continuing

have also allowed the occupation to go on.

Does that mean you also support 'endless war'?

[MadHound]

63. What failed efforts?

Let's see, defunding the war hasn't been tried yet, so that really can't count as a failure.

Protesting the war, writing my congressional reps, well, yeah, I suppose that could be considered a failure, but unlike the Dems, I'm going down swinging, and am at least doing the right thing.

Oh, and helping to change public sentiment to the point where Dem majorities were voted in last fall with the explicit directive to end the war ASAP. Yeah, since the Dems are caving so bad, I suppose that is a major failure, I actually trusted them to do the right thing(when I should have known better, old age, wisdom and all that). However since it at least had a glimmer of a chance of working, no, I don't think it counts as supporting endless war.

But waiting for Republicans to support a timetable, all the while supporting ongoing supplemental war funding bills, yeah, I'd have to say that's a recipe for endless war.

If you honestly think that Republicans are ever going to support any sort of timetable, then boy howdy, have I got lots of stuff to sell to you, here, let's start with this fine bridge over here.

[bigtree]

69. the scheme to 'defund', as you have described it, failed

to get the necessary amount of support to carry it through. Pelosi obviously didn't feel she had enough support in the Democratic caucus to carry it off. Besides, most Democrats are intent on crafting and passing their own legislation rather than just sitting on their hands, directing Bush to do nothing with that action, and expecting him to move off of his occupation out of concern about the shortage of funds. He doesn't give a damn about the money. He's just hunkered down, waiting to see if Congress will actually come together and pass a veto-proof rebuke mandating withdrawal by a date certain. Until then, he doesn't really care at all what Congress does, except to try and make a few points off of whatever he can ridicule.

[MadHound]

73. Put the crack pipe down and back away

Seriously, are you somehow logic disabled? Do you read the news, keep up with things, read what people say to you? It certainly doesn't appear that way.

One more fucking time for the slow learners around here. Defunding the war is an option that hasn't been tried, and apparently won't be tried since Pelosi took that option, along with impeachment, off the table all on her own before this Congress was even seated. There has been no effort to find out who and how many Congress people support this option, since it is the Dem leadership that is holding it up. Why they are not going to use this, I don't know and can only speculate. However I do know that they don't need a "caucus" or support of the majority of Congress. All that is needed for Pelosi to get Obey, the head of the Appropriations Committee, to hold up these supplementals. Now I grant you, Obey is a strange duck, but he could be arm twisted. After all, it isn't like House Speakers haven't exercised this sort of leadership before, and gotten committee heads to respond to their wishes. One only needs to read your recent history to see that. But apparently Pelosi isn't even putting forth the effort, since defunding has always been off the table.

So please, think logically. An action can't be labeled a failure until it has actually been tried and found wanting. Defunding hasn't even been tried yet on this war(though it has been used successfully in other wars), therefore it can't be a failure.

However waiting on Republicans to come to our rescue, that my friend is a both an exercise in futility and a failure. Combine that with supporting endless war funding bills while waiting for this mythical day is simply advocating for endless war.

[bigtree]

74. there it is. the insult. Fuck off. I've had it with the attacks on my character.

[MadHound]

76. Well, I suppose that we're even then. I've had it with people who support schemes

Promoting endless war, and call it "supporting the troops" Sorry pal, but waiting on the Republicans to come to the rescue, all the while passing more and more supplemental funding bills is a recipe for endless war. Think about it.

[bigtree]

77. no we're not. I've never deliberately insulted you.

think about it, 'pal'

[MadHound]

79. *Sigh*

First of all, in post after post, thread after thread, you've called my logic, thinking and personal integrity into question. Second, you are proposing a solution that has absolutely zero chance of success, one that in fact will allow this war to continue without end(waiting for Republicans:eyes:). Third, I was simply returning the favor of questioning your thinking and logic, something that you have done with me on numerous occaisions. Was I getting snarky, yes, I was. But as the rules say around here, one needs to have a thick skin. You and I have been exchanging snark for the past couple of weeks, and yet now you are saying enough? Whatever pal, I find this protestation's timing rather interesting, since once again I'm showing what your real priorities are and what your "solutions" really mean. Funny, you did this same "faux insulted" manuver last time we came to this conclusion. Things that make you go Hmmm!:think:

[bigtree]

81. you think that telling me to 'put down a crack pipe is the same

as calling into question your 'logic'?

I'm done . . .

[MadHound]

82. Considering that you have come out an called my POV

"Full of shit" I think that the snark of asking about the crack pipe is mild in comparison. But hey, go slink off with your faux insulted self. Like I said earlier, I think that this is simply a tactic of yours to retreat with some dignity after getting your ass handed to you.

Wait for Republicans to vote for a timetable, all the while continuing to fund the war, sheesh:crazy:

[bigtree]

83. retreat? me?

I've made these arguments before and I will again. But you I'm done with.

[MadHound]

87. Yep, you are for now

Just like the last time we had this discussion. Get you into the same logical corner, pin you down to where you can't escape the truth, and all of the sudden you take insult at some minor thing in order to weasel away. That's OK friend, I understand, I really do. And perhaps you will use this time of repose to just think on the logic of waiting on Republican votes to end this war, OK?

Peace out
:hi:

[bigtree]

88. all that seems to be left to your argument is a bag of insults

there will not be a withdrawal until Bush is confronted with veto-proof legislation mandating that. We will not get a veto-proof bill without republican votes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. As many others have told you,

THE TROOPS ARE BEING FUNDED. They are not going to be left stranded in the middle east!!

Sheesh.

This isn't about funding the troops. It's about caving to bush. Period.

[bigtree]

45. Bush was not moved off of his occupation by the 'defunding' schemes.

It's just not credible to act as if the effort was working and that now there is no opposition to be found. I don't know why it's so important to continue to promote a failed strategy. Democrats didn't cave, they lost this round. The troops' funding shouldn't be held hostage just to make whatever political point folks want to make. Either we can get the necessary amount of support in Congress for timetables, or not. Freeing money which is intended for the troops already deployed will not affect that equation at all (at least in the near future). Anytime republicans in Congress decide they've had enough of using our troops to prop up Bush's Iraqi junta, they can join with Democrats and mandate an end to the occupation. Allocating money for Iraq wouldn't preclude any such reversal by congressional republicans. Until they do bring themselves to vote for some sort of timetable, Bush won't move an inch away from his occupation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. Listen carefully

The funding is THERE. It has already been approved. This bill is a great big giant smokescreen which makes the Dems look bad (even though they think it is making them look like they support the troops).

It is not about supporting the troops! It is about bush saving face and Halliburton getting even more money.

[bigtree]

48. I don't believe the funding is 'there' for the priorities our party has outlined

in the Democratic funding legislation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. More lipstick for the pig? This was a useless charade from the start.

After giving up most of the salient anti-war points in the "compromises" with the right-wing of the Democrats they folded on what amounted to a toothless provision in the bill they were sending.

Now, they're trying to sell it as a "victory" because it "embarrasses" Bush.

[bigtree]

18. I don't care who it embarasses. I'm just satisfied that we're not holding up the funds

which are intended for the troops.

[MadHound]

24. Again, those funds aren't intended for the troops,

They are intended for prosecuting the war. Why do you think that the bill is called a supplemental war funding bill instead of a supplemental troop funding bill?

Those funds that you're so happy that they're not holding up won't be used to support the troops, they will be used to kill innocent people. Happy, happy, joy, joy indeed:eyes:

[bigtree]

28. I've seen the priorities in the legislation

The designations are specific, like, body armor, humvees, etc. These are Democratic priorities for our troops in these funding bills which have been included by folks who are as concerned with ending the occupation as you presumably are.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Then let them craft a bill cutting everything else out of the bill.

"Support the troops" is a blatant bit of sloganeering akin to "Remember the Maine". Sheer nonsense.

[bigtree]

49. I'm not sloganeering. I've been more than expressive.

the sloganeering is from you.

[MadHound]

34. Yes, replacement parts, replacement armor, replacement material for the replacement soldiers

No replacement material, then no replacement soldiers, and no further war.

It is the right thing to do. It is a tactic that has worked before and can work again.

Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly want the troops home ASAP? Are you truly against this war?

[bigtree]

61. If you had an ounce of interest you could determine that for yourself.

but (sigh) here . . . http://www.opednews.com/author/author176.html

the very best I have to offer . . . everyday, for four years now

[MadHound]

67. Now that's ironic

A book about how military industrialists are profiting with Bushboy's help, and yet here you are, supporting even more funds to line their pockets. Damn, just damn!

[bigtree]

71. Somehow you've confused giving troops what they need with supporting contractors

that relationship can and will be managed by our Democrats in committee. There will always be a relationship between industry and the military. That doesn't mean that those relationships haven't been abused and exploited by the industry. Try and be honest, will you, and not associate the worst of what I've written about with this Democratic effort to get neglected needs taken care of in the Democratic funding legislation which has been offered.

[MadHound]

75. No, somhow you've confused funding an endless war while waiting for Rebpublican votes

With supporting the troops and keeping them safe:eyes: Again(and I find it suprising that I have to repeat this so many times since you've written a book on the topic) the troop support comes from the annual 532.8 billion dollar military budget. Those supplementals that you're so endeared with don't support the troops, they are for prosecuting the war, keep that war machine going, keep our soldiers getting killed and injured, along with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

And hey, if you wrote it, why not own, good, bad and worst?

[MH1]

16. It's a victory for Bush because the Democrats say it is.

Otherwise your points are valid.

[sharp_stick]

21. You're right but won't be popular for saying it.

I'm always surprised at how often people here think that cutting off the funds will bring anybody home, that is a hollow dream. Cut off all the funding you want nobody is coming home until the republicans are out of the white house.

I'm convinced that shrub would keep them over there forever if he felt it could embarrass the democrats.

The money in question here doesn't necessarily go directly to the troops funding but I'll bet anything that the second it's cut off every repuke spokes-pig and associated media lapdog would talk about how it is cutting off troop funding. This would be followed immediately by the pentagon actually cutting off stuff for the troops just to stage photo-ops of them going into the field armed with butter knives and bicycles.

In the meantime Halliburton and the mercenaries at blackwater would be fully funded.

[bigtree]

27. I think the funds have a better chance of reaching the troops under our party's watch

than under the republicans' for the past four years.

I began my opposition to the invasion of Iraq by advocating for the soldiers. It was a decision which I found did not allow me into settle into my traditional, comfortable peacenik role I'd grown up with. It's been four years of some interesting confrontations with folks I mostly agree with. I'm satisfied, though, that I'm on the right side of the debate, no matter how much folks want to push me off as some sort of republican. This middle-aged liberal can take the heat, for our soldiers. That's the mission I chose, and these views are what I strongly believe in. So be it.

[Clark2008]

43. And I'm suprised at how many aren't reading up on some history.

To wit:

Since 1970, the United States Congress considered 21 bills intended to restrict or totally cut off funding for U.S. military operations on foreign soil. Of those 21 bills, five were actually enacted, drawing the curtain on further military combat operations in Indochina (Vietnam War), and Somalia in 1993.

In some cases, the funding cutoffs were absolute and applied to specific military operations, like combat. In other cases, continued spending was allowed for limited military purposes, including combat related to the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops and civilians. In a few instances, the funding cutoff was contingent upon certain conditions or events taking place, such as the negotiation of a cease-fire or the release of U.S. prisoners of war.

SNIP

There seem to be three common threads to wars that are eventually ended by the U.S. Congress. First, a majority of the public wants the war ended. Second, the President of the United States believes the war can ultimately be won. And third, Congress ends up having to cut off further funding for the war to end it.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congendswar.htm


So, Congress not only has the power to stop a war, but it has actually done so, both by cutting funding for the troops and restricting actions by the President in deploying the army. It is the responsibility of Congress to debate the Iraq War’s merits (or demerits) fully and then to pass appropriate legislation, which the President, as Chief Executive, will be bound to enforce.

http://www.irakrakow.com/constitution/category/vietnam-war/

Finally, read all of this: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070506/14vietnam.htm

While I don't disagree that the media and the Republicans would catapult the propaganda (butter knives and bicycles), the fact remains that cutting off funding in SPECIFIC ways has ended wars in the past.

[Orsino]

25. Dems capitulated to the stupid meme of "abandoning" troops...

...rather than stick up for a position that would have brought the troops out of harm's way. I have an even lower opinion of the Dems and R's who have supported the war all along.

[Richard Steele]

29. Not buying it-sorry. This turd just won't take a polish. nm

[TwilightGardener]

35. I don't advocate cutting funds, not because I believe any troops

will suffer, but because public perception would be that Dems CAUSED troops to suffer. That's our media-it will be painted that way, I have no doubt. Chimpy is soley responsible for the troops needlessly suffering and dying, 4 years ago and still today, but no one will see it that way until much later, when we are finally out of this morass--even folks here on DU are starting to say Dems "own" this war, which is disgusting--they are feeding into what will surely be RW talking points for years to come. Dems have to be careful of public perception--it sounds cowardly, but it's political reality, and political survival. They really are between a rock and a hard place.

[DireStrike]

36. It amounts to negotiating with Terrorists

Bush is holding our troops hostage, and the Dems acceded to his demands.

[KingFlorez]

40. But some people don't get that

All they can do is start going on rants about how the war continuing is the Democrats fault

[Pale Blue Dot]

41. If they are so sure that they're doing the right thing, can you explain this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x957797

[bigtree]

51. How do I explain the opportunistic slobbering of Sirota as he bashes Democrats?

I can't.

[magellan]

52. Ha!

I was going to post that. Guess I owe you a beer!

It's really hard to excuse their caving to Bush** as "looking out for the troops" if they aren't willing to vote publicly about it.

[Individualist]

42. Talking points and cliches

You're trying to defend the indefensible; can't be done.

[bigtree]

54. These are my views, expressed as sincerely as I am able

you will, no doubt, take them for what you want.

[treestar]

50. True, and even if they can be funded otherwise

The corporate media will obscure all that. It'll be nonstop about how the Democrats leave the troops stranded, whether it's true or not. It provides just the surface information needed to get it going like that.

[wisteria]

64. No, the Dem's were afraid of how the republicans were going to frame this.

They were concerned that their big investors would not support them any longer. The troops were never in danger of loosing any thing right now. The very idea has been a sham and an out right lie compliments of the Republicans and our Dem's never tried to counter it with the truth. They just don't learn. They need PR/media lessons. Senator Kerry had a great line to use, "The best way to support our troops is to get the policy right." Unfortunately, we have to many Dem's who are not doing the job they were elected to do.

[bigtree]

72. The leadership promised they wouldn't allow their politics to get in the way of the funds

indefinitely.

They followed through on that. The effort to direct Bush through the funding failed to get the necessary amount of support to advance it to Bush's desk (at least in the short run).

Time to move on and try something else.

[EFerrari]

78. Like what? Meditation. What they have is the power of the purse.

What they don't have is political strategists worth a cheese sandwich.

[MadHound]

80. If you will look upthread, you will see BT's proposal

It involves getting the Republicans to vote for a timetable, all the while voting in supplemental war funding bills until this miraculous event happens:eyes:

[Forkboy]

85. This is enough spin to power a dreidel for a year.

[bigtree]

86. yet, it is what I believe.

I don't represent anyone except myself, and I don't have any real need at all for ANYONE's support outside of my own family.

[Forkboy]

89. Never said it wasn't your belief.

And I could less about whose support you do or don't need. :shrug: