Why havent the Democrats cut off the money to fund the war?

[OutHouse]

Just wondering why the Dems, who have majority in house and senate have not cut off the money train to fund the war. wasnt their mantra to stop the war when they took the majority? they have the power to totally turn off the war but have not done so.

so if you really think about it Bush started it but the dems are keeping it alive....

 

[nageov3t]

because they're war-mongering vampires who feed on the innocent blood they pay to be shed.

or because it would be a politically bad move to do so.

 

[ProfJohn]

There was a story just recently where the Dems pretty much gave up on even the idea of ending the war via budget cuts.

 

[Moonbeam]

They might lose some votes for not supporting the troops. It's supporting the troops so they can die fully equipped that matters. Everybody knows that. Only a commie pussy would bring them home.

 

[maddogchen]

cuz that would be political suicide in an election year?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If the Dems managed to cut funding they would be tagged as people who do not care about the safety of the troops. People being what they are will buy that argument(however incorrect) and will run the Dems out of DC, leaving the Reps laughing and winning. The Dems have a talent for shooting themselves in the foot with the likes of Kerry, however they know enough that losing Congress is not the way to win.

It isn't the Dems, it's the public who is the issue here.

 

[jonks]

"There's no political point worth my son's life," Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. "There's no political point worth anybody's life out there. None."

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
cuz that would be political suicide in an election year?

I dont get this. McCains biggest fault by many is his insistence on continuing the war. Yet the democrats wont end the war because it is political suicide? Which is it? Is it political suicide to end the war, or to continue it?

 

[Craig234]

If the democrats did that, they'd face the actual issues in Iraq and be blamed, against the imagined success that would have happened if the effort had continued. It's hard to argue against that.

By analogy, if JFK had not approved the Bay of Pigs, history likely would say he had blown the US's big chance to let Cubans take Cuba back - the CIA and JCS said it was foolproof.

If LBJ had not gone to war in Vietnam, the right would probably say to this day he'd missed an opportunity to defend democracy there against a small force of a few thousand communists.

For that matter, if Bush had lost in 2004, there'd have been a lot of 'the war was going a lot better when Bush was in charge' history blaming Kerry for the worsening situation.

I'm not agreeing with their view on this, if my guess is accurate about them, but you asked why, and I suspect that's a reason.

But one thing their continuing the funding does do, is to hold the Republicans accountable for their war policy. It gives them the rope with which to hang themselves and show the policy isn't working, instead of providing Republicans with an easy scapegoat to blame for why it's not working.

If you don't like politics like that, talk to the voters who reward it and punish the policies you would like.

 

[MonkeyK]

If the Dems did cut funding it would be as good a statement that they don't care about the safety of our troops. We already know that Bush will keep troops in place with or without funding ("You go to war with what you have, not with what you want").
While cutting funding to force change sounds good, it was an impractical proposal to start.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
If the Dems did cut funding it would be as good a statement that they don't care about the safety of our troops. We already know that Bush will keep troops in place with or without funding ("You go to war with what you have, not with what you want").
While cutting funding to force change sounds good, it was an impractical proposal to start.

How would Bush pay for the troops to remain in Iraq? He cant pay with monopoly money no matter how much I am sure he would like to. They'd have to come home or find another source of funding.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
If the Dems did cut funding it would be as good a statement that they don't care about the safety of our troops. We already know that Bush will keep troops in place with or without funding ("You go to war with what you have, not with what you want").
While cutting funding to force change sounds good, it was an impractical proposal to start.

How would Bush pay for the troops to remain in Iraq? He cant pay with monopoly money no matter how much I am sure he would like to. They'd have to come home or find another source of funding.

He has a large amount of already-approved funds available to get him through his term.

However, the Dems could have cut off funding and forced his hand earlier.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
"There's no political point worth my son's life," Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. "There's no political point worth anybody's life out there. None."

except for all the sunnis that'll get murdered. they aren't worth crap.

 

[Matilda]

i think this falls under "easier said than done".

 

[Mxylplyx]

Past all the popular rhetoric the democrats like to spew, they know like most responsible people that we broke Iraq, and therefore we must help fix it. The geopolitical fallout from abandoning Iraq, opening it up to a bloody open civil war that Iran would me more than happy to swoop in and fix, would be enormous. Just like many of the feel good liberal talking points and social programs, it sounds good in a sound byte, but thats about it.

 

[fskimospy]

Picking up all of our troops and equipment from Iraq will take considerable time, and a lot of money. It would be incredibly irresponsible of the Democrats to suddenly stop funding the war and leave untold billions worth of equipment, etc over there. So, they can't stop the war just through refusing to pass spending bills. They have repeatedly attempted to pass responsible bills that would start a withdrawal at some point, but they have been filibustered by the Republicans in the senate or vetoed by Bush.

What do you suggest they do?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
If the democrats did that, they'd face the actual issues in Iraq and be blamed, against the imagined success that would have happened if the effort had continued. It's hard to argue against that.

By analogy, if JFK had not approved the Bay of Pigs, history likely would say he had blown the US's big chance to let Cubans take Cuba back - the CIA and JCS said it was foolproof.

If LBJ had not gone to war in Vietnam, the right would probably say to this day he'd missed an opportunity to defend democracy there against a small force of a few thousand communists.

For that matter, if Bush had lost in 2004, there'd have been a lot of 'the war was going a lot better when Bush was in charge' history blaming Kerry for the worsening situation.

I'm not agreeing with their view on this, if my guess is accurate about them, but you asked why, and I suspect that's a reason.

But one thing their continuing the funding does do, is to hold the Republicans accountable for their war policy. It gives them the rope with which to hang themselves and show the policy isn't working, instead of providing Republicans with an easy scapegoat to blame for why it's not working.

If you don't like politics like that, talk to the voters who reward it and punish the policies you would like.

two things i disagree with.

1. both hillary and obamma have both said they would end the war and bring the troops home asap.

2. the Dems are just as accountable for the war. they have voted for it just like the republicans did and for the past 2+ years they have had the power to end it but have not.

 

[Bird222]

Because they have no balls.

 

[StageLeft]

Because they talk big but do nothing. They are indefensible, despite the efforts of some to defend them. Republicans suck, democrats suck.

If the Dems did cut funding it would be as good a statement that they don't care about the safety of our troops. We already know that Bush will keep troops in place with or without funding ("You go to war with what you have, not with what you want").
While cutting funding to force change sounds good, it was an impractical proposal to start.

Holy f**k, we found one, folks. We found one who bought the line by Bush about not supporting the troops, good gawd I wasn't sure I'd ever catch one alive.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Past all the popular rhetoric the democrats like to spew, they know like most responsible people that we broke Iraq, and therefore we must help fix it. The geopolitical fallout from abandoning Iraq, opening it up to a bloody open civil war that Iran would me more than happy to swoop in and fix, would be enormous. Just like many of the feel good liberal talking points and social programs, it sounds good in a sound byte, but thats about it.

That's not why they haven't removed funding. When a Democrat takes office next January I bet you see the very first Iraq war funding bill start to withdraw troops. They are just acting responsibly at this point considering the republican obstructionism. If only Bush were to act so adult.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Because they talk big but do nothing. They are indefensible, despite the efforts of some to defend them. Republicans suck, democrats suck.

If the Dems did cut funding it would be as good a statement that they don't care about the safety of our troops. We already know that Bush will keep troops in place with or without funding ("You go to war with what you have, not with what you want").
While cutting funding to force change sounds good, it was an impractical proposal to start.

Holy f**k, we found one, folks. We found one who bought the line by Bush about not supporting the troops, good gawd I wasn't sure I'd ever catch one alive.

I'm not sure you have. I read it (and could be wrong) as "if the Democrats cut funding it would be used against them as if they truly do not support the troops"

Now we'll see

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sirjonk
"There's no political point worth my son's life," Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. "There's no political point worth anybody's life out there. None."

except for all the sunnis that'll get murdered. they aren't worth crap.

You exaggerate, but essentially, american lives are worth more to americans than another nation's citizens. Just like your family cares more about you than the guy down the street, and you care more about your friends and co-workers than you do about people in another state. Ties of commonality determine how much you care about someone and their fate. So while Iraqis aren't "crap" they do rank lower in importance to US citizens than our soldiers. Which is no different than any other country feels about its soldiers when they are overseas.

Biden's overall point was taking funding from our troops to force Bush's hand might have an adverse affect on Bush, but it wouldn't be worth any adverse effect on our troops.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: maddogchen
cuz that would be political suicide in an election year?

I dont get this. McCains biggest fault by many is his insistence on continuing the war. Yet the democrats wont end the war because it is political suicide? Which is it? Is it political suicide to end the war, or to continue it?

McCain doesn't want to continue the war. He wants to ESCALATE the war. His own website says so.

The Dems can't end the war because, at this time, they lack the political means to do so through any way except through cutting off funding to the troops, which would unfairly leave them high and dry and exposed to unnecessary danger.

The POTUS is commander-in-chief, remember?

 

[ayabe]

It's all about the Senate, the Dems don't have a majority, the math is simple, especially when you can count Lieberman as an R.

It's as simple as that, if the D's had a majority in the Senate this would have been a done deal.

 

[hellod9]

One word: Lieberman