Do you support cutting off funds for the war as follows?

[welshTerrier2]

Suppose Democrats were to cutoff funds for Iraq in a "phased funding decrease"? the idea would be that a budget for Iraq would be provided and it would decrease each quarter. since the whole Iraq madness has been done by special appropriations, i.e. outside the main budget, the Democrats could control how much money is allocated each quarter.

Now, suppose they put bush on notice TODAY about exactly what funds were going to be made available. And let's say that each quarter, for the next 6 - 9 months, 12 if you must, there would be a 25% decrease in funding.

The republicans, of course, would be all over this. "Democrats are holding back funds from the troops!!!" Well, no surprise there. But Democrats would not be holding back funds from the troops. Democrats would be giving bush plenty of notice about what his headcount budget is. If bush refused to cut the headcount, the fault for failing to protect the troops is his. It is his job to protect those troops given the amount of funds Congress allocates. It is his responsibility to reduce troop levels if there is not adequate funding to maintain the current troop levels.

We all understand there will be nothing but finger-pointing if this happened. Both parties will try to make political gains from the ensuing fight.

The question is, do you agree with a cutoff of funds to stop the war?

[Joe for Clark]

1. I really think we have to make it so expensive that no one

will touch it.

We better start pushing it - hard.

Joe

I agree with your sentiment, by the way.

To the extent this has been a matter of gamesmanship - they kicked our ass. We better be prepared to play games here - important games. And play to win. We can do that.

Call the bluff.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. That's actually an interesting idea

I think Murtha is working on something similar to that. Essentially his bill would require that the troops get what they're supposed to have and therefore the war will just become too expensive to pay for.

[Joe for Clark]

9. We win if we can think out of the box here.

Colonel Murtha - he protected his kids - and I know he is a very, very smart man.

Make the costs real - count all the costs - all of them. Make them fund them - all of them.

We can win this from that perspective - we should not pull anything - let us push 100%.

All the way.

Joe

[AuntPatsy]

2. Has there ever been adequate funding available for out troops

both here and there?

[Joe for Clark]

11. Oh there was in 1946. You think if they tried this nonsense to

WWII vets they'd get away with it??

I am sorry they did with some effect to the Viet Nam kids - not again though.

Joe

[Mass]

3. Definitively. This madness has to stop and the only way the Congress has

to stop that is to cut funds in a responsible manner.

[damntexdem]

4. Yes. I would also support funding only enough ...

to bring the troops home now.

[dogman]

5. I don't know enough about the funding process.

It seems that is what Murtha is proposing to some degree. The GOPers talking point was shown as "the slow bleed". The only question I have is whether the CIC can shift funds as he feels necessary. The polls show the public is against a cut in funds because they do not understand what it really means. If this is going to be done it will require a good explanation to the people. Since the GOP has the benefit of the press machine, I do not know if it is possible. It seems that the Democrats don't have the will or the cohesiveness required for this fight.

[babylonsister]

6. I don't know that dimson or the rethugs will listen, or how to get around that,

but I absolutely support cutting off funds and getting the troops home. We will now and always need to worry about their welfare and what's being ignored; that in and of itself will require tons of funds.

[knight_of_the_star]

7. They could always re-write the budget

Namely take out all money for new weapon systems and only put in enough for body armor, ammo, food, water, and medical supplies and attention. That would put in the squeeze.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Yep.....that could be an effective approach......

cut the budget but not for troop support.

[knight_of_the_star]

12. But still puts the hurt on the contractors

That way we can get the best of both world so to speak.

And if Bush vetoes it, he's vetoing a budget that supports the troops.

[BenDavid]

13. Cutting funds for Iraq will be a mis-

take.WHY? The Dems have to let George Bush's "last chance run out" and if they stop it before Sept. 1st. THE Democrats will collect ALL the blame for the failure of the Iraqi occupation.
This is Bush's War so it HAS to be His to lose. He and the right wing say they will know if it is working by the end of the summer.They have set their own end date.I can not see the Democrats cutting their own throats for the difference of a couple of months.

If they tamper with it, they own it.It will become the Democrat's quagmire if they assume control. Bush (and America's whore media) will say,
"We were winning until the Democrats stopped supporting the troops."BC

[jarab]

14. You're right. And their propaganda is better than ours.

So, if twenty years of tradition holds true, they'll make us look like the bad guys..... again.
Nuff said.

...O...