Time for Dems to pull war funding?

[npincus]

Poll question: Time for Dems to pull war funding?

OK, it's clear as day that the destructive psychopath plans to ignore the will of voters, his own party, and all of the advice from all quarters that Iraq cannot be stabilized by military means, but requires a diplomatic and political solution instead. Short of impeaching B*sh and Cheney (long shot), the only way to halt this catastrophe is to starve it of cash. Or isn't it?

I'm starting to believe that Dems have to do this. B*sh is mad, mad, mad (as in 'nuts').

[asthmaticeog]

1. To the people who voted "Bad Idea. We'll pay in 2008.":

Playing politics with troops' lives is a form of scumbaggery best left to the GOP. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

[helderheid]

2. thank you - agreed!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asthmaticeog]

23. Just posting my opinion, like everyone else here, Vash.

You're welcome to yours, of course, though I vigorously dispute your assertion that I'm a fascist fucking jackass.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. And I vigorously dispute you telling people they should be ashamed of themselves.

You have no basis for doing so.

[asthmaticeog]

28. My basis for doing so is the fact that it's true.

Politicizing the withdrawl will lead to more troop deaths while we wait for a politically expedient time to do so. This is unconscionable. Therefore those who espouse it should be ashamed for letting more troops die for the sake of political expediency.

What part of that do I not have a right to say?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. You basis is flatly wrong.

There are other circumstances that you are minimalizing completely. It's not entirely political, but you seem to think I'm an idiot for thinking so. Furthermore, you have no moral authority by which to claim someone should be ashamed of themselves - period.

I did not, however, ever claim you had no right to say what you did. I ask you not distort my words in the future.

[asthmaticeog]

30. Well, you're right about one thing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Probably the original comment that got deleted. (nt)

[asthmaticeog]

33. Nope.

It's that I seem to think you're an idiot.

[onehandle]

3. Pulling "war funding" would be seen as "not supporting the troops."

We need to find a way to pull troops from Iraq.

[asthmaticeog]

5. If the funding is pulled, we can't afford to keep them there, ergo they come home.

It's not like we'd strand them there after defunding the war.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. The problem is, they don't come home.

Don't think for a moment that Bush wouldn't leave the troops there without funding. You aren't that naive, are you?

[endarkenment]

17. OK, so what is your solution to this problem? nt.

[asthmaticeog]

25. WOW, someone woke up on the idiot side of the bed this morning!

[endarkenment]

6. By war supporters of course.

"We need to find a way to pull troops from Iraq."

Yes you do that by removing the funding for their continued presence. The Congress is not CIC - that would be DumbAss - and cannot order troops to do anything. The Congress's power is the purse string.

[npincus]

7. is there another way?

what is it?

I'm really asking. B*sh is NOT going to do it, not now, not ever. Can B*sh be coerced? Could a bipartisan group from Congress lay it down, behind the scenes, that they DO have the votes to impeach, unless he does a 180 turn on this revamped version of stay-the-course?

What's the third way to get troops out?

[endarkenment]

4. Yes of course, that is why we were voted back into power.

The people expect nothing less of us. Oh by the way it is the only moral and ethical thing to do. A vote for more funding is a war crime.

[Nutmegger]

8. They'll be seen as "soft on terra"

But they should stand together and not be afraid of the M$M and the Repukes.

[Vincardog]

9. It is long past time we worry about what the radical reich will think of it.

The Democratic people of this country voted to end the illegal occupation in Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Lesson from Nam

another ego had to be stopped this way

[AndyA]

11. What the people want regarding Iraq is crystal clear at this point.

After November, there can't be much room left for any doubt.

Americans want our troops OUT OF IRAQ and BACK HOME - ASAP!

Congress needs to do what we want, or we'll find new Congresscritters who will. It's as simple as that.

[hashibabba]

14. Only 11% of this country supports an escalation in troops. I hardly

think that will ruin our chances in 2008.

asthmaticeog, LOVE the picture of Bush and Pickles!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. How are increasing the troops and pulling funding equivalent? (nt)

[patrice]

16. Does "Fund it, but restrict the use of the funds to non-combat related

activities" = Other?

[Marie26]

18. Not sure we can

In Bush's signing statement to the Defense Appr. Act of 2007, Bush basically said that he can transfer other military funds to the Iraq War if Congress stops funding it. So if Congress tries to cut off funding, Bush could cite "executive powers" & continue the war anyway by shifting other Defense appropriations into the war.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. Then they should force him to do exactly that.

That would remove any doubt at all as to who is responsible for the continuation of this war.

[Marie26]

20. Right

It would also show the lengths that Bush will go to to continue this abomination. I'm not even sure he can do that, legally. But he put it in the signing statement, so it's pretty clear he's willing to try.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

24. I'd like very much to see him try

It would open discussion about this administration that I, for one, would welcome the rest of America hearing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. The congress has the "power of the purse". Now they need the will to use it.

Or, less politely, the courage to use it.

[LWolf]

22. Other: It's well past time.

But better late than never. Now would be better than later.

[HughBeaumont]

27. Funding should be pulled based on the gunning down of innocent civilians.

This never was a "war". This is an extermination of a sovereign nation. I cannot read one more story of citizens getting sprayed with bullets while grocery shopping. I'd rather be seen as "soft on terr" (right, because Iraqis were terrorists prior to us blowing up their nation) than a genocidal junta that continues to allow the homicides and rapes. Condi can take her fucking agenda and shove it the hell up her ass.

Incidentally, why the HELL does ANYone give three flying fucks what Republicans think??? WHO GIVES A GODDAMNED FUCK?? They destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan, this military, our economy and this nations resolve and reputation. STOP APPEASING THESE IRRELEVANT SHITBAGS NOW!! We do not need to appease THEM. We need to clean up their mess and change the nation they soiled.

[riderinthestorm]

32. The 2007 funds for the occupation of Iraq are already approved and over at DoD

Where Bu$h as CIC can direct those funds as he likes.

There is nothing a Dem Congress can do at this point to "defund" this occupation until they are asked to fund a "supplemental" funding bill which the earliest that will come up (by most expert estimates) isn't until late spring, early summer.

Bu$h will have his escalation since he has the money to do it. The next six months will be critical in terms of applying pressure to Congress to deny him his supplemental funds when that time comes - that is the best we can hope for now.

Personally, I believe a manufactured incident (like the Gulf of Tonkin) is planned for within the next 6 months which will throw all of our hopes out the window. I know, cynical but alas, I think we're in Iraq for the long haul unless the Dems impeach and remove the shithead in chief. That is the only way this fiasco has a chance of ending.

[orleans]

34. i saw barney franks interviewed yesterday and he was explaining

that fuckhead already has tons of money the last congress gave him and basically he can do what he wants with it.

so, he's already been funded. it's already been done. unless congress tries to pass a law that says fuckhead can't use that money for a surge in troops--and i'm not sure congress can even do that at this point (besides the fact that bush would only cast a signing statement to it anyway)

this, of course, is only my understanding of what franks was talking about

[DuaneBidoux]

35. Not yet. This would be bad to come in without warning and pull funding.

I voted other.

You cannot leave your military hung out to dry. What you can do is give funding and write in some very strong directives: there must be progress (i.e., specific metrics) on "a," "b," and "c." You can also write into the funding bill a statement that says this is a path being taken by the legislative only because we have been given no choice if we are to support our troops. Also make it clear that we do not feel it is the best overall course that we should pursue and if our party was in the executive we would take another direction (and do indeed have a plan in mind here). Even if you pull funding, for those who don't know, the president will be able to starve other parts of the federal budget to get his war funding, thus it is only a statement of principle and not of practice.

From a purely political perspective the best approach (although some might question the morality) is to be very public from party leaders about the disagreement with policy but also explicit that we owe the troops. At the same time we must make it clear that we will have completely washed our hands of the result of this latest "surge" maneuver.

If we do these things, and the war goes like I expect under the emerging policies of this president look for us to control both legislative and executive branches in '08. The problem is that I am not sure anyone will want to take over the festering shit pile by then.

[riderinthestorm]

36. This is my understanding too.

"Even if you pull funding, for those who don't know, the president will be able to starve other parts of the federal budget to get his war funding, thus it is only a statement of principle and not of practice."

And do you think he's going to pull the funding from defense contracts for example? Nope. Dems need to be very careful about proceeding with defunding although the issue is moot for 2007 as far as I can tell, Bu$h has his money for the moment....