There aren't enough legislators to pull off an Iraq funding cut or immediate withdrawal, so . . .

[bigtree]

I don't understand why those who failed to get the support needed for those initiatives in Congress think it's alright to leave the troops already committed to the battlefield by Bush without the supplies and resources they need to be safe and secure.

All of the talk about 'money in the pipeline' is bullshit. The troops have been shortchanged by the last Congress, and we all know it. The money provided in the Democratic bills - including the latest one that contains benchmarks instead of a date certain for withdrawal - is not only for troops in the field who've been seriously shortchanged by the previous republican majority, it's also for the thousands of troops preparing to be sent into the war zone without the proper gear and protection and those in support positions in the region. There's also money in the compromise legislation proposed for our veterans and returning soldiers. None of those concerns are being addressed in the Democratic opposition to the compromise bill announced by the Democratic leadership today.

It's as if the opponents of the funding bill are satisfied pretending that they have the necessary amount of Democrats who are convinced to follow them in whatever action they are proposing now. The last vote on the McGovern bill, which required immediate withdrawal, showed that, while there was an increase in support for the position, they were still far from having enough votes to see the position through.

I don't know why it's seen as such a principled stance to have tried and failed to convince enough in Congress to go along with a cut-off to leave it up to Bush or others to ensure the troops have the supplies, protection, and other resources they deserve while Congress bickers back and forth. There's not enough consideration of the fact that these troops are, effectively, still stuck in the middle of Iraq's civil war, because of the political impasse brought on by Bush's obstruction of the will of the majority in Congress that he withdraw.

Their needs haven't gone away. Why don't they deserve the funding? Not Bush; the troops. Why should their needs be denied while Congress argues? It looks like some folks are satisfied to squeeze the soldiers who are in the middle of the war zone in Iraq to get to Bush. There's really no way to deny the negative, potentially dangerous, effect on the troops if there isn't any move to get the resources to those who are stuck in Iraq because of the inability of Congress to come together on withdrawal legislation.

Where's the effort from the 'no' voters to get the resources, equipment, and supplies to the troops who they KNOW will now be stuck in Iraq until at least the fall? They know this because they can count the votes, or count the support, for any other action they've proposed. They know they've failed, so far, to move Bush off of his occupation. What happens to the troops in the field in the meantime?

Those legislators who now oppose a compromise on funding the troops in the field, including those in the 'Out of Iraq' caucus, need to tell us what they intend for the soldiers to do to keep themselves safe and secure -- those soldiers whose lives are still in the balance because of the FAILURES of legislators to come together on a withdrawal plan (or any other of the schemes to move Bush).

I don't think it's enough to sit back satisfied just because someone has taken some 'principled' stand against Bush. If there's no move to provide the resources for soldiers already committed, and for those on the way to Iraq that they (we) weren't able to hold back, it will become clear that the well-being of the troops, for some in our opposition, is less important than just making their political point.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[EFerrari]

1. Wait -- it sounds like you're actually thinking about the welfare of our troops.

:(

[Monkeyman]

2. K&R

Even to pull out they will need funding. To Redeploy will be ugly but it most be done.

[TwilightGardener]

3. There is the Webb-Hagel bill, designed to at least limit deployment

lengths and frequency, so the troops aren't overstressed. Harry Reid promised to let it come to a vote, and it never did. I think it was a great idea, and yet, where did it go? How would the GOPer Senators vote it down without looking like asses?

[Beaverhausen]

4. Didn't Webb vote against Feingold's bill last week?

[TwilightGardener]

5. Yes, he did. Although that didn't surprise me. A lot of Senators, D and R,

won't vote for funding cutoff or binding withdrawal. I can't blame them--I'm iffy on it too. But Webb had a great idea to help protect the military from being overburdened, and it sits on a shelf.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. No money. No war.

Without the funds to pursue the carnage, they will have to bring the troops home or fund them in some other way.

While our "leaders" continue to fund Bush the war will continue.

[ComerPerro]

15. Thats just idiotic. You honestly think BushCo will suddenly say,

"Oh, damn, we don't have any money to fund the troops any longer. Well, guess we better bring them home so they don't get killed!"

Fuck no, of course not, wake up.

The Repigs obviously don't give a shit about the welfare of the troops on the ground. So simply refusing to fund the war won't end it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. If they can't pay for it, it will end.

Wars cost tremendous amounts of money - 2 billion a WEEK - is what we're paying for the fiasco in Iraq. How many weeks do you think that the troops could stay there if there was no 2 Billion a week?

It's not about giving the troops dental floss and toilet paper, it's the whole cost of transportation, munitions, recruitment, operations, spare parts, support units, etc, etc, etc.

Bush can want to keep the troops there but if he can't pay for it, he'll have to bring them home.

As long as the Dems slavishly pump the money he demands, the war will go on.

[ComerPerro]

27. Its childish. At best, the repigs will let a few hundred more die and blame Dems, then

say that they can't bring them home because they don't have the funding.

Of course, when funding is passed to bring them home, it will be used instead to prolong the war. This adminstration has already divereted funds to pay for this war. They will do it again.

And I really don't know why you think that they wouldn't just leave the troops over there to die.

If anything, they would continue what they already started, which is require that the troops foot their own bill for armor and bullets.

[sampsonblk]

65. ..and doing the same thing we did before isn't idiotic?

Friend, we have to start somewhere. Holding the line on accountability was a weak first step. If we held the line, Bush would be forced to negotiate. Instead we caved.

If you agree that the GOP doesn't care about the welfare of the troops on the ground, then why not agree that we should make that clear to the public by holding out till the last?

[ComerPerro]

66. who would force him to negotiate? We cut funding, and the public wants our heads.

No pressure on Bush at all

[sampsonblk]

69. Yeah that's what they will say on FoxNews

...but our side passed a bill to fund the occupation and he refused it becuase he didn't want any rules. Based on the polls after the veto, the public was solidly on our side. I'll take our side in that debate every time. The public has blamed Bush. What are you so afraid of?

[Virginia Dare]

78. That they will shift the blame to the Democrats??...

I'm sure that's what they're afraid of.

[sampsonblk]

88. Sure. So let's shift the blame back on them

There's nothing to fear hear except that the GOP has more fight in them than we do. Judging from the comments of some, I can see where that fear comes from.

[endarkenment]

74. You know this how?

We cut the funding for vietnam and the public reaction was: 'bout time.

[ComerPerro]

80. I've been living in the US these past six years, for one thing

I know how this bullshit administration operates.

And, about the Vietnam thing: That war went on for nearly ten years, you know

[endarkenment]

81. Yes and the general reaction to congress finally acting

to end the war was: relief. 70% of the public wants this war over, the sooner the better, wants our troops out of there. Claiming that we do not have public support for ending the war is silly. What we don't have is an opposition party to the war party.

[ComerPerro]

82. 70% want an immediate cut in funding? I highly doubt that. But believe what you want

[endarkenment]

83. They want a clear timetable for withdrawal.

The other question is not even asked. 70% want us out and soon.

[nolabels]

90. You mean they may be going against the curve?

Would you be saying it might take less then ten years to figure out the invasion/occupation is a lost cause :shrug:

[earthside]

7. Second Surge

So, are we to understand that since Bush has committed the troops to Iraq, the Congress must give him all the money he wants to "support the troops"?

If that is the case, it explains the news story today about a 'second surge' coming in December. Bush will just keep committing the troops to the occuaption and Congress will be obligated to keep appropriating the money.

No, Congress should do the will of the people and simply not pass an appropriation for more war in Iraq. Bush can then request a redeployment supplemental.

[mike_c]

8. what nonsense is that...?

"There aren't enough legislators to pull off an Iraq funding cut..."

How many legislators does that take?

All it takes is refusal of the House leadership to a) author a bill, or b) move someone else's bill through committee or to a floor vote.

What are the possible consequences of that?

A possible challenge to the leadership position of Nancy Pelosi. But such a challenge would require the support of a solid majority of democratic house members. Do you really think that the democratic party is ready to throw Nancy Pelosi out of the Speaker's position in order to continue the war against Iraq?

[bigtree]

9. we KNOW how many it would take for your scheme to work

That position has FAILED, repeatedly, to get enough support in this Congress among Democrats (even in committee) We can berate them from now until whenever, but they may not move from their positions for some time.

What happens to the troops while we wait for that turnaround in support for the actions you propose? It's not like these options haven't been out there for them to choose from for the entirety of the debate. While you're waiting for legislators to come around to your position, what happens to the needs of the troops in the field? Just turning away and patting ourselves on the backs for fighting the good fight won't change the fact that the troops are still in the war zone without the supplies they need to keep them safe and secure.

Pelosi doesn't control the votes of those in our party who are standing in the way of a vote for an immediate withdrawal. Changing her as leader would only possibly result in the presentation of another unsupported action; unsupported within our own majority, like the McGovern initiative. In the meantime, the troops are still waiting and wanting.

[Monkeyman]

11. The Funding also includes 3.5 Billion for Veterans Health Care

Given the funding back to Brain Injury research. And Making sure the new IED finder get to them in a rush.. I hate the War everyone here knows that. But You are Right

[Telly Savalas]

42. What's preventing them from funding veteran's health care in separate legislation?

[endarkenment]

92. Nothing at all.

This shit was stuck into the bill so that folks like the OP can claim it is all about sportindatroops. It is total and intentional bullshit.

[mike_c]

21. in the meantime, the war crimes continue and Iraqis die so our politicians...

...can avoid risk. I don't "support the troops" in the same way you evidently do. I don't support their mission, I don't support what they're doing, and I don't give a rats buttocks if they're having a hard time occupying Iraq against international law. They're committing crimes in our name. Congress is the only institution of government in this country that even CAN stand up and put a stop to this.

The practicalities that you cite simply indicate that we as a nation and the democratic party in particular lacks the will to stop committing crimes against humanity. Is that the nation you want?

[bigtree]

29. too many folks safe back here at home 'don't give a rat's ass'

It's not their mission. It's Bush's. You haven't achieved any change in the law which would allow these soldiers to refuse the mission with impunity. Yet you want to saddle them with the crimes of their leaders and commanders who've ordered them into action.

I'm dealing with the same political realities that are keeping you from what you want. But, while we bicker, the soldiers are suffering. You KNOW they're in the field. You KNOW thy aren't coming home until at least the fall. You can see the political landscape as clearly as I can. You can pretend that there is some political breakthrough right around the corner, but you can see as well as I can that there isn't enough political support (even within our own party) to 'stand up' and 'put an end to all of this', at least until the fall.

Meanwhile, the soldiers,who, by law, are expected to remain in harm's way, are not being given the supplies and equipment necessary to protect themselves against a militarized resistance bent on their destruction. Who will take responsibility for that protection and well-being of our soldiers in the field while we practice our politics?

[mike_c]

45. they aren't coming home because DEMS are now paying to keep them...

...in Iraq. Thanks for nothing, Nancy Pelosi!

[bigtree]

53. they are paying for their needs until they can resolve the political squabble and obstruction

that's keeping them there (thanks Bush)

[sampsonblk]

70. Exactly-nt

nt

[endarkenment]

10. No funding no war.

Bush is not going to leave the troops stranded in Iraq. That is just silly. The only power Congress had, the only effective option, was to deny funding. More funding, more war.

[bigtree]

12. 'silly' is expecting Bush or the generals to care enough about the troops

that they've deployed with the stated expectation that even more will lose their lives at a rate matching their escalation. It's been decades since we've seen commanders, from the White House down to whatever lackeys agree to carry out their mission, commit soldiers to battle with such undefined, unrealistic objectives and no discernible exit strategy. They've committed a wholesale abandonment of our soldiers just to prop-up their Iraqi junta.

Bush has been limping them along by feeding off of the rest of the Defense budget. There's no guarantee at all that he wouldn't just continue to limp them along; or sacrifice them to make his political point. That's what he's been doing all along. It's just 'silly' to expect him to stop now. It's even more pernicious to sit satisfied in opposition while we wait for the troops to become stressed to the point where there's some high level resistance to their continued deployment.

Who are these folks in the opposition you are expecting to care? Hopefully not the ones who've already stood by and pushed our troops forward in the face of the thousands already sacrificed for their commander's politics.

[endarkenment]

13. He could do that - borrow defense funds.

And in doing so he would deepen the crisis of the abuse of power by the executive branch. Meanwhile Congress would be on the record as not funding the war, and an overreach of this sort would be a further push toward impeachment.

What they won't do is leave the troops stranded without supplies in Iraq.

What is certain if we continue to fund the war is that the war will continue. That is not even debatable.

[bigtree]

14. He's already 'borrowing' money from the Defense budget

It's been reported twice that he requested, and received permission, for short-term adjustments amounting to, I think, about 4 billion total.

As for leaving our troops stranded with out necessary supplies, it's already happened:


from Think Progress in January: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/31/military-equipment/

As White House Plays Anti-Military Card, Troops Go Without Guns, Supplies, Armor

An audit by the Pentagon’s Inspector General (http://www.louise.house.gov/images/dod_ig_equipmentaudit_1%2025%2007.pdf) released to Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) shows that U.S. soldiers have had to go without the necessary weapons, armor, vehicles, and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan: (http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2007/db20070130_624241.htm)

The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn’t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to “effectively complete their missions” and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General’s office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found.

“As a result, service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment,” reads the executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed supplies, according to the summary.

More bombshells are likely to come soon. Following a letter last year from Slaughter to the Pentagon, the Inspector General’s office reported two ongoing audits into the procurement of armored vehicles and body armor for American soldiers. “The results of those studies will be available in July and October of 2007, respectively,” Slaughter’s office says.

[ComerPerro]

16. What do you think he has been doing? He stranded them there three years ago!

[bigtree]

18. so, how much longer are you willing to leave them without adequate supplies

and equipment while the debate continues?

Will there be ANY satisfaction seeing the troops at their breaking point while we wait for Bush to bend?

[ComerPerro]

19. Honsetly? I don't give a fuck. They will get what they need no matter what

[Monkeyman]

20. Sorry They Are Not

Equipment is in short demand.

[ComerPerro]

23. Well there you have it. So cutting all funding won't end anything

[MadHound]

17. Stop with the propaganda and spin

The Democrats could very easily bring this war to an end, simply by defunding the war. Bury each and every supplemental funding bill deep in committee, and let the war wither on the vine. As far as supplying the troops go, their basics are taken care of the defense budget that is passed each and every year. It is the supplementals that keep this war going, stop them and you stop the war.

And if Bush tried to dip into the defense budget he would be pulling back a nub, since that would be a clear breach of his authority and fits easily under the definition of "high crimes". Besides, I imagine that the Pentagon would go ballistic if he did that.

Sorry, but no amount of spin can cover the fact that the Dems are kowtowing to their corporate masters, the same masters behind the 'Pugs. It has been decreed that the war must go on to fatten the MI complex's wallet, and hardly none in the corridors of power will oppose them.

Oh, and one other factor that you need to take into consideration. Voters who are anti-war and/or in the left wing are right now running out of the party like water through a sieve. This means that the Dems are going to essentially hand the 'Pugs a victory next fall. Gee, thanks.:eyes:

[bigtree]

22. you completely ignore the fact that that position has FAILED to get the necessary support

you take NO responsibility at all for that failure except to keep proposing the same unsupported political strategies. Meanwhile, you take NO responsibility for the troops who have been left in harm's way with their needs because of that FAILURE.

Bush has twice requested, and received permission to 'dip' into the Defense budget. That's a reported fact. I posted the figures here months ago.

I don't know where you get off blaming me for 'anti-war' Democrats abandoning the party'. This is about getting the troops the resources, supplies, and equipment they need to keep them safe and secure in the battle-zone while the politicians bicker. Who will take responsibility for that? Are you waiting for Bush to notice that our troops are suffering, and, all of the sudden, bend?

Proposals to cut off funds presume that troops will suffer to the point that their commanders will notice and back off of their occupation. How many shortages are you willing to allow our soldiers to bear while you wait for your proposals to gain enough support to prevail and make a difference in Bush's actions and intentions?

When will we know that squeezing our soldiers is moving Bush off of his occupation? Will you watch and document the effects of the shortages on the troops while you wait? Will YOU recognize when they've suffered enough shortages to effect your political strategy?

Can you make your argument without the lame defense that caring about the needs of the troops already deployed, and those on the way, is only a concern of that's shared by the republican opposition?

[MadHound]

28. Well d'uh, I know it hasn't gotten support. Hell, Pelosi took the defunding option off the table

Before this Congress was even seated. So yeah, I know it doesn't have support, that's what I'm pissed about. The Dems have an easy weapon for ending this war sitting in their hands, and they refuse to use it. A weapon that doesn't require a vote nor a signature, just the collective Democratic will. And apparently the Dems are lacking in that, along with a spine.

As far as supporting the troops goes, well, if you would read for comprehension instead of speed, you would see that I addressed that in my earlier post. There are two seperate military budgets, the regular defense budget that pays for food, supplies, and the rest that is required to support the troops. Then there are these supplemental war funding bills, which actually go into prosecuting the war. Remove that source of funding, and the war won't be able to be prosecuted. If Bush tries dipping into the regular military budget for war funds, he can and should be prosecuted for criminal actions by the Democrats. Sadly however, that is another issue that would require the Dems to show a spine.

This strategy has been used successfully before, and can be used again. You may not like it, but it is better than waiting for the Democratic planets to align, or playing politics with the lives of innocent people. What other alternative is there? Oh yeah, non binding resolutions:eyes:

Oh, and where the fuck did you get this? "Can you make your argument without the lame defense that caring about the needs of the troops already deployed, and those on the way, is only a concern of that's shared by the republican opposition?"

Either point out to me where I specifically said such a thing, or back the fuck off of the spin and bullshit. It is a poor debating tactic to try and put words in your opponents mouth, and just goes to show up how bankrupt your own position is.

[bigtree]

30. there isn't enough support for the 'defunding' option, even if Pelosi 'put it on the table'

I took your charge of 'propaganda and spin' and fleshed it out. I'm satisfied to respond to bullshit like that whatever way I please. I'll interpret bullshit like that whatever way I please. I don't give a shit how you meant it.

[MadHound]

31. Ah, I see, creative interpretation. In other words if you don't like what I'm saying

You'll just twist it around and have it say something else. Gee, and here we all thought that it was only 'Pugs who stooped to such a level.

And again, please listen closely. The only Congressional support that you need to tie up those supplementals in committee comes from the Democratic side. Since they have control of committee, they have control of the legislation that gets voted on, and can hold out those supplementals forever. All it takes is for the Democratic leadership to show some spine. Yeah, I know, that's a tall order.

[bigtree]

35. that's right. you throw around you innuendo and insults and you get whatever I want to throw back

waste of time (thanks for making yet another McCarthy-ite attack on my political integrity). We did just fine making our points without all of that.

I agree that the Democrats standing in the way of an immediate withdrawal are wrong. Those in the leadership, however, don't control the votes of those in committee to the extent that I think you expect. Pelosi only has one vote. She hasn't been able to muscle past those in committee who reject the idea of tying up legislation and holding back supplementals. For whatever reasons, most legislators in our majority are more interested in fashioning their own legislation rather than relying on just knocking down Bush's proposals in committee. That's what they did with the latest funding measure they passed. It was Democratic bill with Democratic priorities, designed to gather the largest amount of support to reach Bush's desk.

Maybe sometime in the future these legislators will come to your position, but, in the meantime, we know our soldiers are waiting for the supplies they need to keep them safe and secure.

[MadHound]

40. Well then, if Pelosi and the Dem leadership can't get these committee chairs to do this thing

WTF good are they? The Dems were elected with a mandate last fall, end the war ASAP, using any means necessary. If they fail to do so, then the Dems are going to lose next fall, as the anti war folks, the left, will all bail, leaving the DLC centerists to rot. It will be repeat of '68 all over again. If Pelosi, Reid, et al don't get a rat's ass about the lives of innocents and the lives of our soldiers, then perhaps if they realize that their own political life is on the table they'll get up off their ass and do something.

C'mon, this isn't that difficult. I've seen past Democratic leadership control the votes, control the committees and control the Democrats with their little finger. If our current leadership can't do the job, then it is time for new leadership.

[mike_c]

47. Pelosi has authority to set the legislative agenda....

There a no votes involved.

[bigtree]

52. She can't unilaterally hold up the funding bills

that's just not true.

[mike_c]

55. yes it is true-- if she has the support of the democratic majority to retain...

...her position as speaker. She can set the legislative agenda. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely true. Furthermore, challenges to her position could only come from her democratic colleagues.

[bigtree]

58. she can't hold up a funding bill on her own indefinitely

if she doesn't have the support of the majority of her party. She determines that level of support in caucus. The division among members has been pretty clearly demonstrated by the votes so far, in committee and without. I seriously doubt she could successfully stand in the way of the majority indefinitely without being voted out.

[mike_c]

61. you're right-- if the majority of house dems want Pelosi out...

...she could not stand up to that challenge.

But I don't think that would happen. Do you think the majority of house democrats are ready to throw away an historic speaker of the house in order to prolong the war against Iraq?

If they are, then the party is even worse off than I imagined.

[mike_c]

46. how many times does this have to be repeated...?

What do you mean "there isn't enough support for the defunding option?" How much support do think is needed? All it takes is the House leadership burying any attempt at the supplemental appropriations. That's all. There's not even any voting involved. Pelosi already has the absolute authority to do that. What other "support" do you think is necessary?

The only way around that tactic would be removing Pelosi as Speaker. Do you think a majority of democrats would vote to kick out the first woman speaker of the house? I think not-- she is herself an historic figure and she would be making history by bringing the congressional big guns to bear on Bush's war.

Instead, she's choosing to buy into it. She's choosing complicity in the name of political safety while America commits war crimes in our names.

[bigtree]

51. I will repeat this until you get it

Your coalition hasn't convinced enough legislators to go along with your scheme. It's not like they haven't already considered your idea. They have and they've rejected that option. There haven't been enough legislators willing to just sit on their hands. They'd rather craft and gather support for their own legislation rather than just reject Bush's requests in committee. There hasn't been enough support shown for the scheme you propose. You can browbeat them until next year if you want, but for right now, there aren't enough of them who are interested in carrying out your scheme. In the meantime the soldiers are waiting.

[mike_c]

56. you've never answered the real question....

How many votes do you think it would take to stop funding by simply not introducing another bill? HOW MANY?

It requires ZERO. No coalition. No veto override. Just a spine.

[bigtree]

59. the majority in our party disagree with that course

the majority sees a need to get funds to the troops already deployed

[mike_c]

62. still dodging the question....

How much support is needed to NOT let a supplemental appropriations bill through the house? How many votes?

What is the regular defense appropriation? Chopped liver? The supplemental is not intended to "get funds to the troops already deployed." it is to cover the ADDITIONAL costs of committing crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why do you support war crimes?

[thunder rising]

57. The soldiers will be just fine

the mercenaries will cut and run when the money runs low.

[Seabiscuit]

36. There's an easy and obvious solution.

Since Bush won't budge or compromise, Congress shouldn't either - just keep passing supplemental bills that contain withdrawal dates, and he'll continue to veto them, until he's run out of money to play his war games. That effectively would cut off funding. Finding any kind of legislation that he'll sign is nothing more another form of a blank check for this criminal war enterprise.

I'm ashamed of the Dem leadership today. Truly ashamed and disgusted.

Our votes last November didn't mean squat.

[bigtree]

37. what happens to the troop's needs in the interim? Do you know?

What type of shortfall or lack of supply or equipment will eventually move Bush off of his occupation? Can you qualify that for me? Who will suffer the losses and who do you expect in the administration to take notice?

[Seabiscuit]

48. Bush has more than enough money already

to supply the troops for the time it takes to redeploy them. The Pentagon should see to it that the troops get what they need in the meantime. The Dem leadership in Congress can make it clear on a regular basis that they intend to end this war, and the President will not receive any additional funds to prosecute it until he signs a bill with mandatory deadlines for withdrawal. They can tell him through press conferences and formal letters that absent his signature on such legislation he will have no more money and will have no choice but to withdraw sooner than later. No one would suffer any losses beyond Bush's ego. As Congress' warnings would be both private and public, Bush and his entire administration will be on notice constantly.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

[bigtree]

50. I don't know why you are ignoring the shortages which already exist

both in Iraq and for the soldiers deploying. If you ask most soldiers, and *I have asked, they will tell you that, at this point, they would be happy to see the money released to get them through the summer while Congress argues.

[Seabiscuit]

67. The soldiers you talked to obviously want to *STAY* there.

And we all know those soldiers are in the extreme minority.

There are NO "shortages" of funds. Just "shortages" of allocation of funds, e.g. the Walter Reid embroglio. This is a *supplemental* spending bill, for an extra $100 Billion on top of the billions already allocated for the year last fall, earmarked by Bush because he wants to justify his "surge" to the public. Bush has *too much* money to spend already on his stupid war.

If Bush wants even more money, he can go after the $10 billion his cronies at Halliburton supposedly "lost". That's on top of their grotesque overcharges. His cronies at Halliburton alone can afford to support the troops for months to come, just on the profits from their obscene war profiteering.

The Dems in Congress have shamed themselves, not only to the voters but to the media. See, e.g.: http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Democrats-cave-in-to-funding-Iraq-war/2007/05/23/1179601441287.html - Dems have "caved in" to Bush's intransigency (this article just popped up on my homepage, Google News). What a hell of a legacy. The Dem leadership in Congress has just bought the right and obligation to have this war deemed a "bipartisan" war instead of a "Republican" war. Fuck those cowardly two-faced assholes, and I do mean you, Nancy Pelosi et. al. It makes a mockery of democracy and the will of the voters as expressed in the November 2006 election results (even after the Diebold et. al. machine fixes were in).

Let's all get something straight: This war is an obscenity. Anything that supports the contuation of this war is obscenity. This proposed bill supports the continuation of this war without any check on Bush's power to continue it, without any consequences for failure of the Iraqi government to meet unspecified "benchmarks" of "progress". It gives Bush the right and power to ignore everything in it beyond the money it grants him to continue perpetuing this obscencity. It therefore is nothing more than a Repuke-style "blank-check" for the war. It stinks. It's obscene. And its supporters are themselves obscene.

I watched in abject disgust Nancy Pelosi's press conference remarks about it all: she basically is conceding that in view of the upcoming recess, Congress is not willing to do squat about this war until October, when it will be called upon to respond to Bush's annual budgetary request for war spending. Meanwhile she just lied through her teeth about this bill supposedly representing some kind of message that Congress is saying the war must come to an end. I'm so disappointed and disgusted with her leadership that I could puke.

[soothsayer]

68. they should look for the $2.3TRILLION missing from the Pentagon, as announced by

Rummy on 9-10-01 (hmmn, wonder why we forgot about that story?). That was back when we had that orthodox rabbi in charge of the pentagon coffers for some reason.

[bigtree]

72. Actually, there's a report today that they are.

What do the soldiers do for new equipment and adequate supplies while they're waiting for all of that to flesh out?

[bigtree]

71. everyone can see that the effort to craft a withdrawal bill before the fall is dead

the only question now for these soldiers is will they have the resources they need to get them through till then. Without some sort of funding, the answer to that would be no; all in the name of helping them. The soldiers want to have the materials and resources they need to keep themselves safe and secure.

If you can't see the manner in which the military is now feeding off of itself to carry out it's missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere you just aren't looking. There is no credible report - external or internal - which would back up your claim that 'allocation' is the problem and not a need for this Congress to directly provide the funds the republican Congress neglected to provide.

You talk about your objection to the occupation as if that's an attitude that you alone share. I heard a veteran on Olberman last night who said essentially the same thing I have; that the soldiers will be happy to see the funds freed-up so they can rest easy that there will be adequate resources and equipment to get them through the summer. This was from a veteran who has been extremely critical of the occupation. That's just one example, but you're way off base when you suggest that soldiers who want the funding to pass just want to continue. They can measure the progress of the debate here in the U.S. as well as we can. They can see that the debate has bogged down and there won't likely be any significant political action until at least September. They have a perfect right to expect Congress to give them what they need to survive and defend themselves against a growing resistance in Iraq bent on their destruction while the politicians bicker and the debate develops into a stalemate.

I think folks need to be honest with themselves about what these soldiers are facing while Bush obstructs Congress' will. They are in no position to affect the debate here at home. I seriously doubt there are many (if any) soldiers who would willingly sacrifice their safety and well-being by refusing the materials and supplies the funding would provide with the expectation that someone in the administration or the Pentagon would notice the shortfall and give a damn enough to end the occupation.

Who are these soldiers that you expect to suffer these shortages, and who in the administration or the Pentagon do you expect to notice and care enough to change course?

[Seabiscuit]

95. You are either easily misled and misinformed, or you are part of the problem.

Speaking of Keith Olbermann, here's what he has to say on the subject (which in his own words expounds on exactly what I've been saying):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132

[bigtree]

96. right, we disagree so I'm a pariah to you

whatever

[mike_c]

24. bigtree-- you don't seem to understand that it isn't congress's job...

...to come up with a "withdrawal plan." That's the executive's and the Pentagon's job. Congress's job- and specifically the House's job-- is to appropriate funds for war or not appropriate them. Period.

Congress can stop this was very quickly by refusing to appropriate the funds. Then it is up to the Pentagon to devise a "withdrawal plan"-- one which undoubtedly already exists.

If Congress funds this war, the democrats own it.

[bigtree]

32. They haven't done what you propose

and the troops are still waiting in harm's way without the supplies and equipment they need.

Do we really want to take the position that our legislators shouldn't try to get them those things they need just because they oppose them being there? We all see the troops in the field. We know the political landscape, so far, won't allow an immediate exit. How can we just sit back and blame Bush for shortchanging them and not try and get them what they need while we are at a stalemate? How can we watch them in this jeopardy and not act? Denying them the supplies and equipment they need to keep them safe and secure hasn't forced an end to the occupation so far. At what point in their suffering from the shortages are we responsible? If the relief can get to the troops through some sort of a funding bill then how can we claim that Bush is entirely responsible for the shortfalls and the effects of those shortfalls? When DO we become responsible for the politics which have them stranded without adequate defenses against a resistance bent on their destruction?

[mike_c]

44. do you honestly believe that the "troops will be left stranded" anywhere...

...if Congress refuses to appropriate funds for further occupation? Step away from the crack pipe, my friend.

[bigtree]

49. what a sham. you can't make your argument without insulting me?

the troops are 'stranded' now. they need the funding now. Congress can bicker all they want, but for now, they aren't able to come together and agree on a withdrawal. The troops already deployed, and those on the way, shouldn't suffer in the meantime.

If you think there aren't life-altering, and life-risking shortages already with these soldiers you aren't looking at all.

[BurtWorm]

54. mike_c, Congress (including Pelosi) clearly don't have the will to defund the war.

These are not radicals we're talking about. These are people who are very well conditioned to presume the government's business as usual is business conducted in "good faith." They are not going to take radical measures. They don't have the stomach for it. Or the imagination. Let alone the votes!

It really surprises me that so many here exhibit a naive faith of their own in these people.

[bigtree]

60. I think that, in this case, there is the consideration that soldiers' lives would be affected

that is more than many legislators can stomach without any political consideration at all.

[BurtWorm]

63. It's difficult for me not to be cynical about this

I hope you're right, but then why did they fake a big showdown over the previous bills? Why didn't they start off saying, "We'll give you the funds to protect and arm the troops through the fiscal year, but we're not going to back down on a timetable for the 08 appropriations." They could have avoided the headlines Devilstower at dailykos has pointed out that they've racked up on this:

http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/118844852/123

Here's how it plays in the media:

Democrats Concede On Iraq

Democrats Retreat in Funding Showdown

Bush Wins Congressional Battle Over Iraq

Democrats Concede. Democrats Retreat. Bush Wins. And that's not even covering the many stories on how the Democrats "caved in" or "blinked." Yes, that's exactly the kind of news everyone was looking for after 2006. I think we were all hoping for headlines just like these.

Now it may be that, as usual, the media have the Dems all wrong--they're not really the bluffers they appear to be; the media just can't catch the nuances of the Dems' brilliant plan to protect the troops and force increases in the minimum wage and Katrina and VA funding on Bush and the Pubs while psychologically setting a benchmark for the US plan to show signs of progress in September. But it's difficult not to notice that the Dems seem to be going back to the deck for more cards even as Bush continues to hold his one stupid hand. He's not giving an inch. He's going to run out the clock and hand Iraq off to someone else to deal with. This is so fucking obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention. If the Dems can't figure out how to force him to crack, we're stuck in Iraq for at least 19 months with no chance for an exit strategy. Why can they not crack this idiotic nutcase?

[bigtree]

73. BurtWorm

I absolutely HATE this. The headlines . . .

But, the question is, who will get these soldiers what they need while the politicians bicker? There will be another crack at this in July or at the latest, August or September. In the meantime, there are shortages in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the states where these soldiers are being deployed and redeployed. We haven't yet stopped Bush and there's no way that we should be expecting the soldiers to bear the burden of the shortages while the politicians in the U.S. are at a stalemate.

I just want to know how folks can be so confident that a strict 'defunding' scheme wouldn't hurt the soldiers with the shortfalls having been reported (and unaddressed) since last year. You have to ask yourself, just WHERE and WHEN do the advocates of denying funds to move Bush off of the occupation expect that the effects they're looking for will take place?

Who do they expect will suffer the shortages and who in the administration and the Pentagon do they expect will take notice and care enough to call for an end to the occupation?

[BurtWorm]

79. I hear you, bigtree.

As with all things having to do with Iraq, there are no easy solutions or answers. The Democrats need some marketing genius who can help them frame (overused word, I know) their actions so the public knows they're not caving, just choosing their battles *intelligently* with an eye on winning the war (for lack of a better term). They are still suffering from the unfair perception that Democrats are weaklings. They have to be careful with that perception, fight it at every opportunity. They have to bang away at infecting the media with the more accurate perception that it's unyielding Bush who is a weakling.

[mmonk]

26. Deauthorize, then defund.

No funding shuts military operations down.

[Disturbed]

33. If this Bill contains Minimum Wage Hike, Busholini will veto

it. Then it is back to the drawing board.

[mmonk]

34. There needs to be no bill. Just a vote to deauthorize.

Then they can defund through a bill. The conflict will no longer be authorized by the legislative branch.

[bigtree]

38. I like this route the best. It sets up the ability to confront Bush on Iraq

with legalities (in court, if necessary; or with an impeachment), along with his inevitable disregard of their legislative will.

Still need to find (build) enough support for this proposal.

[mmonk]

39. Yep. That's what we lack (support) right now.

Hopefully, Richardson can push the idea if he gets momentum in the primaries.

[blues90]

41. It is obvious to me that they don;t give a shit about the troops

It seems to be all about their political careers and keeping out of real debate .

I don't know what the dems problem is unless they have things to hide they don;t want brought out or they just don;t know or have a clue of what to do .

I have lost all faith it getting out of Iraq , perhaps the funding is going to open their attack on Iran , who can say since we get little info and there are no checks and balances as far as I can see .

[Johonny]

43. I think there is simply a lot of disappointment.

I think there is a general feeling here that the Dems didn’t get enough for this watered down a version of the bill. But the Dems basically back themselves into a corner to start with by claiming they would not leave the troops unfunded. Without much leverage they eventual passed the bill the president pretty much knew they would eventual pass if he waited long enough. The question now is will they continue to push for the end of the war, or is this the only and last measure? The Dems said this is the beginning and not the end of the debate today. So while many antiwar Dems may feel angry today, let’s hope the Dems do better on strategy and don’t give up fighting. Frankly the war isn’t going to end until the president ends the war.

[sampsonblk]

64. The money is for the OCCUPATION of Iraq

The money is not for the troops. Its for the 'war.'

Refusing to give Bush free money does not equate to taking money away from the troops. Its Bush's responsibility, as much as the Dems, to quickly sign into law something reasonable. He has refused to do so. Why should our side be the ones to cave in? Especially when enabling the current Bush policy amounts to killing our own soldiers?

Put simply, we are right and he is wrong. Why on earth should we blink when he refuses to do so?

[bigtree]

75. you can't be looking very closely and not see the equipment shortfalls

and the armor shortfalls.

You can't be looking at the same veteran's services and conclude that there isn't a need to give these soldiers what they need and deserve while they are deployed and deploying. Try putting yourself in their place. They can see the debate has come to a stalemate. They can see as well as we can that there won't likely be any significant legislative action achieved on a withdrawal this summer. If I were in their place I would be expect to have NO shortage of the supplies, equipment and resources that would be necessary for my survival and well-being. Why is that too much to ask from a nation whose citizens are mostly preoccupied with their own safe, productive lives here at home?

I personally despise the notion that the troops have to be squeezed to get someone in the administration to notice and care enough to bring them home. No one can tell me that defunding without some congressional direction is not an effort to end the occupation on the backs of those who are already making the ultimate sacrifice with their lives and livelihoods on the line.

[endarkenment]

84. You can rationalize funding this war in six different ways

but they all end up in the same place: enabling the continued occupation of iraq.

[bigtree]

85. Should we be concerned at all with the troops who are arriving in Iraq today

without proper gear or training? Should they be without body armor they need just to make a political point? Should they be forced to cannibalize their equipment to keep it operating while we bicker instead of receiving new parts and new equipment? Or should they just wait and do without while the politicians dig in their heels?

Is a new reinforced Humvee which would help protect them as they travel through Iraq too much to ask for these men and women who are stranded because of the political impasse in Washington?

While there is no agreement on the horizon or any prospect for Bush moving off of his occupation until at least the fall when republicans may jump ship, what happens to the needs of the troops already deployed?

Should they do without, hoping that someone in the administration will take notice and care enough about the shortfalls to move off of their occupation? Who in the administration do you expect to pay any attention to all of that?

[endarkenment]

86. You can rationalize funding this war in six different ways

but they all end up in the same place. I refuse to play your 'sport da troops' game. Funding the war is funding the war.

[bigtree]

87. I think it's sad that you think these documented shortages and the efforts to address them is a game

I do think the argument that every funding of the troops in Iraq is 'funding the war' is dishonest. The troops shouldn't be left to fend for themselves at Bush's mercy while we try and find a way to move him off of his occupation. They shouldn't be made to sweat or suffer shortages in essential equipment and supplies this summer just so some politician can make their political point.

[endarkenment]

91. It is sad that you think this is about body armour. nt.

[bigtree]

93. I gave several examples of necessary equipment which has been lacking

that the bill provides for.

There are other examples, though, the lack of adequate body armor is a good measure of the neglect of these soldiers' needs by the administration and the previous Congress. Our Democratic majority has addressed needs like that, as well as provide for the general needs associated with such a deployment. Until you or anyone else can figure out an effective way to move Bush, these soldiers will be in Iraq. Just pretending they don't have these needs during this period of stalemate is not a responsible option. Pretending that holding up the money these troops need was succeeding in moving Bush is even less responsible.

[sampsonblk]

89. The vet services will be lacking either way

Bush doesn't care about the vets. They went into Iraq with money out the azz and poor body armor. If you are so into protecting the soldiers and vets, put your efforts into bringing them home. Or specify that the money is to be used for their saftey and well-being. Giving free money to Bush is not helping the soldiers or vets.

Incidentally, I am a vet. So's my dad. So's my grandfather.

[bigtree]

94. I am putting my efforts into bringing them home,

but I'm not shutting my eyes to the fact that those efforts have reached an impasse, and these soldiers are still in Iraq - and still heading to Iraq - without adequate equipment or training. These troops' needs don't go away just because we're advocating withdrawal. While we're bickering, they remain in harm's way, expecting that they receive what they need to keep them safe and secure. It makes no sense to put them at risk or put undue stress on an already stressful situation by squeezing their resources to make a political point Bush is ignoring anyway.

[GeorgeGist]

76. Just one thing ...

they don't need votes to cut off funding that does not exist. Bush vetoed that, remember.

[bigtree]

77. Democrats (rightly, I think) crafted their own funding bill

and most of those funding provisions will be contained in the 'compromise' legislation.

The troops are still waiting for someone to either pull them out or give them what they need to survive with dignity. They shouldn't have to stitch together old, worn-out equipment ravaged by Iraq's sand, or be burdened by shortages of materials and supplies to help them manage their lives in the summer heat of Iraq's desert while they wait for Bush to bend to the Democrat's proposals.