Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CUT OFF THE FUNDING! A Plea to the Congress

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:26 AM
Original message
CUT OFF THE FUNDING! A Plea to the Congress
Democratic leadership - When we take it back, we need to have the spine to use this threat- no more free ride on Iraq - show us a realistic military plan and budget or CONGRESS WILL CUT OFF THE FUNDING.

If they refuse serious oversight - CUT OFF THE FUNDING

If they will not present a coherent exit strategy - CUT OFF THE FUNDING

If they do not support the soldiers who return, in need of medical and psychological help - CUT OFF THE FUNDING

If they refuse to delve into Halliburton/KBR billing - CUT OFF THE FUNDING.


Ending an occupation that shames our nation is not cowardly - it is the first step towards re-establishing our country as the greatest democracy in the world.

Please don't quake with fear over the notion that the conservatives will use this to bash you in 2008. Do the right thing by your country, and your country will support you.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
markbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hmmmm....
The last time Congress cut off the funding for a BFEE "War of Choice" it brought us the Iran/Contra debacle.
What do you suppose they'll try this time?
Inquiring minds want to know!

:popcorn:

--MAB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. after drugs/weapons, what is left?
sexual slavery/nukes??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. If someone is holding members of your family for ransom
How do you convince the rest of your family that not paying that ransom is the best course?

That, is the problem.

Wish I knew a workable solution to the problem, but it is not just a matter of spines or no spines in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. Admirable sentiment, I fully support it, however
I seriously doubt that any such action will be taken. Given the Dems propencity to move ever rightwards, and to outhawk the chickenhawks, I seriously doubt that they'll withhold Iraq war funds, no matter what the reason. I'll even go one step further and predict that we'll be looking at two pro-war candidates for president in '08. Of course I'm a cynical bastard, sadly my cynicism has been met and/or exceeded many more times than not. Here's hoping however :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Check this: Anxious Dems eye power of the purse on Iraq
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Fro...

I cant stop this war, a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.

But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bushs second term, Rangel paused before saying, Youve got to be able to pay for the war, dont you?
<snip>
Woolsey is among the Democrats in Congress who are hoping to control the power of the purse in 2007 to force an end to the war. Woolsey and some of her colleagues note that Congress helped force the end of Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it.
<snip>
Abercrombie stressed that Democrats are not going to sever funding for the troops. Cutting off funding is easy to say and another thing to do, according to Abercrombie. Whats more like likely, he said, is to fund the conflict in a way that will end the war by reallocating money to new initiatives.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
6. If I had a son or dauighter in the military, this would not work for me. n
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. may I ask why not?
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 09:07 AM by FLDem5
I thought about this strategy after reading this really long article. I was thinking about what I believe are flaws in this logic.

The threat of cutting off funding means future funding. So far, we have paid for this war with emergency supplementals which limit oversight, because the "money is spent before Congress can say No." This is as opposed to putting together a budget - this administration can claim that we need these funds quick to keep fighting or we're doomed. Threatening cutting off this funding will INCREASE OVERSIGHT and force a measured withdrawal if that is all that is in the budget.

Bush has already issued a signing statement so he can refuse the war-funding law.

Why? Because if he doesn't have to ask for the money in a responsible way - which THIS CONGRESS finally tried to make him do, he is free to spend our trillions until the cows come home. That is not okay with me anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Probably has to do with the way it's framed. You have
explained why it's a good idea and I agree, but I can hear it now. "The Dems want to cut the funding to the soldiers." I don't know how well that will play unless, in about 10 words or less, you can convince Americans it's for everyone's own good. My stomach turns every time I hear about cuts at the VA for wounded soldiers, so that was my gut reaction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. 10 words or less? Hmmm...
Defund the war expansion, reallocate to homeland security and VA support.


That is 11, sorry I couldn't do better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
8. Jim McGovern has already introduced legislation to do just that
This is how the Vietnam war was finally ended, btw.


Press Release, so here's the whole thing:



http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1025-17.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 25, 2005
5:18 PM

CONTACT: Representative Jim McGovern
Michael Mershon, (202) 225-6101


US Representative Jim McGovern to Introduce Bill Ending Funding for Iraq War


WASHINGTON - As the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq reaches 2,000, U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) this week will introduce legislation to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. The bill will allow funds to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops; for transitional security provided by other countries including international organizations like NATO and the United Nations; and for continued support for Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq as well as funding for reconstruction efforts.

The statement Rep. McGovern gave on the House floor today:

Mr. Speaker, CNN reported today that two thousand American troops have now lost their lives in Iraq. It is time to end this war. Lets bring our troops home and restore U.S. credibility in the world community.

This war was based on fiction. That is a fact that is no longer disputed. There were no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to Al Qaeda. There was no imminent threat. This Administration with the acquiescence of Congress rushed into a war that according to Secretary of State Colin Powells former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, has made our country more vulnerable, not less, to future crisis.

The Bush Administration has stubbornly refused to reassess the situation. They have refused to listen to the words of military and diplomatic leaders who have warned that a continuing U.S. presence in Iraq will not calm the violence or lead to a more stable Iraq. The U.S. presence in Iraq is now a major part of the problem. Al Qaeda is in Iraq today because we are there. The abuse and torture by U.S. forces of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and the near three year occupation by U.S. troops have made us an unpopular force in Iraq even among those who originally supported the U.S. invasion.

We have spent over $300 billion on the war with no end in sight. It is estimated that another two years of war will boost that amount to one trillion dollars. Our military is stretched to the limit, with much of the burden falling on our Guard and Reserves.

There are some politicians in Washington who say that no matter what we must stay the course. I strongly disagree. It is worth pointing out that it is not Congressmen, Senators or members of the Bush Administration whose lives are on the line in battle. It takes no courage for anybody in Washington to wave the American flag and send more troops. We owe our brave, fighting men and women so much more. Washington made a mistake in going to war. It is time for politicians to admit that mistake and fix it before any more lives are lost.

In Vietnam we didnt have the lesson of Vietnam to guide us, says David Halberstam, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of that war. He goes on to say, In Iraq we did have those lessons. The tragedy is that we didnt pay any attention to them.

Mr. Speaker, we have now sacrificed the lives of 2,000 members of our Armed Forces in Iraq. Thousands of others are wounded. Tens of thousands of civilians from Iraq and elsewhere have died since the U.S. entered Baghdad and ostensibly took control of the nation.

This week, I am introducing a resolution to prohibit the use of tax payer funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. The bill, however, will allow funds to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops. It will allow us to support transitional security provided by other countries including international organizations like NATO and the United Nations. The bill will also allow for continued support for Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq as well as funding for reconstruction efforts. This is not a cut and run strategy. Rather, it is a way to support efforts that I believe can be more helpful in creating a more stable Iraq. But, the bill makes clear no more U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq.

Ultimately, the future of Iraq will depend on whether the various factions in the country genuinely and truly want to live with each other. No constitution or election can fully determine that outcome.

This war has cost us dearly in terms of human life and treasure. At a time when we are shortchanging our veterans here at home, our schools, health care, and even our homeland security -- it makes no sense to throw good money after bad in this quagmire in Iraq. Sometimes great nations misstep, as I believe we have done in this case. It is now time to ask the tough questions and face the hard truths. It is time to end this war.

*****

Brief description of McGovern Iraq bill

Upon the date of enactment, the legislation would:

End all funding for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq

Defense funds may be provided for:


the safe and orderly withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq

consultations with foreign governments, the UN and NATO on international forces to ensure Iraqi security and transition to democracy

contributions of money and equipment (but not personnel) to Iraqi security forces and international forces to ensure Iraqi security and transition to democracy

The bill would not prohibit or restrict any non-Defense funding to carry out social and economic reconstruction in Iraq (e.g. State Department, USAID, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of Commerce, EPA, etc. funds).

At this time, Congressman McGovern intends to introduce the legislation on Thursday, October 27th.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I like this bill - I do have one issue with this, though,
this part:

"The bill would not prohibit or restrict any non-Defense funding to carry out social and economic reconstruction in Iraq (e.g. State Department, USAID, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of Commerce, EPA, etc. funds)."

this seems to me, to leave open a wide window for funny dealings. I could see this being abused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. well he's acknowledging out moral obligation to rebuild Iraq
but yeah i see your point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
11. A cut off that really needs to be done is the money to run Gitmo.
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 09:28 AM by jwirr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC