Reply #15: What evidence do we have that the 'defunding' approach was working?

[bigtree]

Or would have eventually worked?

I don't understand the reasoning that soldiers shouldn't be adequately equipped and supplied and that our party in charge shouldn't work to make certain that they are.

The 'war' would only continue 'indefinitely' if we fail to convince the necessary amount of republicans to vote for a bill with timetables. It would continue 'indefinitely', even if we were just content to just send the same rejected bill back and forth. The strategy did advance legislation to Bush's desk, and we did get an important veto which makes Bush and his republican enablers solely responsible for continuing. But, it has failed to move him, and there's no evidence that just repeatedly sending the bill to him would move him off of his occupation anytime soon.

I really don't understand the purpose in withholding funds. If we get the necessary amount of votes for a timetable, the troops can begin to come home, funds in place or not. It's that simple.

Maybe the proponents of continuing to tie funding to the timetables Bush rejected can explain how that failure to move Bush represents such a winning strategy. He doesn't give a damn about the troops' funding, and apparently, he has the means to just limp them along as he pretends his hands are being tied.

What evidence is there that using funding as a bargaining chip would move Bush now or anytime in the near future?