• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: Citrix
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....
:cookie:
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
And the correct answer is: To get a budget bill through the Senate, the Dems need 60 votes (to be able to shut down debate). The Dems don't have 60 votes.

And even if the Dems passed a budget bill that was reconciled in both houses of Congress, they'd still face a veto by Bush.

That's also why it's so difficult to make any substantial change to the status quo.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: 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 :p
I do not believe that our Congresspeople want to put troops in greater harm (maybe there are a few psychopathic exceptions). But Bush seems almost happy to play chicken with Congress.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,423
615
126
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Citrix
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....
:cookie:
is that a oatmeal cinnamon raisin cookie?
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,897
0
0
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.
If Iran is able to swoop in and fix the situation in Iraq, why wouldn't the morally correct thing for us to do be to stand aside and let them? If we broke it and it's our fault then the fastest method for getting them un-f*cked should be the only priority, not our national pride or standing in the global community.

Or am I just being irresponsible?


Also, I like your user name :) Vowels are 'teh suck.'
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
It's is hilarious to read this thread and listen to the delusional people talk about how if Congress cut funding for the war in Iraq that it'd put the troops in greater danger.

What they're saying, along with the spineless liars in Congress that say/suggest this, is that it would put themselves in greater danger come election time, so, they won't do it because they don't want to accept the responsibility of such a decision.

It is simple folks, exceedingly simple: There is already M&P (methods and proceedures) in place within DoD to feed, water, house, and Yes, arm the troops if funding runs out/is cut.

It may mean the troops are confined to bases and we have to start withdrawing them in mass numbers, but, for sure, they will be fed, watered, and armed during that time.

Anyone who says different is either f'ing clueless or knows and is being dishonest for a reason...you decide which.

Chuck
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Originally posted by: 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?
I'd say that the president has no authority to use our troops overseas without declaration of war from congress, but the idea of a government bound by laws went out of style with Lincoln.

Habeas Whatus?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
In terms of the bay of pigs, that was a turkey JFK inherited from Eisenhower. As for the Russians putting nukes into Cuba, that Kennedy threatened nuclear war with Russia to prevent. You can more or less bet your bottom dollar that the Russians would not have backed down unless Kennedy pledged the USA would never invade Cuba again.

All subsequent American administration's have honored that probable not for public consumption pledge even though its been again doable since the time of GHB onward.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,275
711
126
Simply put, they dont have the votes. The democrat majority relies heavily on freshmen moderates, that arent able to vote to cut funding and still have a seat after Nov.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
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....
You can't cut funds for soldiers that ARE THERE FIGHTING, they will still be there and in harms way.

There is a way out of this war but most people don't like the idea of slaughter, well i used to be one of them, that all changed when i realised that there aren't going to come more US troops to the WOT, they are all tied up in the WOC in Iraq.

Thank god for the French who sent more troops that made the Canadian troops stay.

The French are apparently committed to the WOT, to bad the US is NOT, but you will be, when they bomb the shit out of you the next time, it seems the US NEVER learns.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,361
8
0
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Simply put, they dont have the votes. The democrat majority relies heavily on freshmen moderates, that arent able to vote to cut funding and still have a seat after Nov.
Exactly, Bush won't sign the bill the Dems want and they can't overright his veto.

EDIT: This also goes to why the Dems haven't revoked the authorization for use of force in Iraq.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,852
14,003
136
They sent a bill to the Prez that had timelines- it was vetoed, remember?

And that was done amid a great deal of fearmongering and stubborness by the chief exec... He basically threatened that, since he won't withdraw the troops, no matter what, that bad things would happen to them w/o money... He's holding the troops hostage in Iraq, hostage to the Neocon vision.

He also threatened to cut defense dept jobs if he didn't get his way- can't imagine where, other than in blue states...

And it worked- troop levels were increased, not decreased, as we set out on this whole "Surge" song and dance. Even though the Surge is scheduled to end over the course of the spring and summer, I wouldn't bet on it- it'll need to be extended past the election as an attempt to keep the lid on in Iraq...

It's the same wrt housing, lending, and the economy in general- they're just trying to paint a rosy picture, play for time, to give McSame a chance in the election...
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,195
0
0
cowardice.

Bush and the idiot Republicans are guilty of lying to us and dragging us into an inane war.

But the Democrats are guilty of surrendering the most important responsibility of Congress - to approve or disapprove a war. Any Democrat who voted for the war, despite their conscience, is as guilty as anyone for putting us in this situation.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of the bay of pigs, that was a turkey JFK inherited from Eisenhower. As for the Russians putting nukes into Cuba, that Kennedy threatened nuclear war with Russia to prevent. You can more or less bet your bottom dollar that the Russians would not have backed down unless Kennedy pledged the USA would never invade Cuba again.

All subsequent American administration's have honored that probable not for public consumption pledge even though its been again doable since the time of GHB onward.
Actually, even the Kennedy team felt that they had reserved the right to invade Cuba, by having the non-invasion pledge conditional on UN inspections that never happened.

I've yet to sort out the truth on Kennedy's later Cuba policy; there are some claims of backdoor diplomatic efforts, and other claims of a planned invasion.

However, Henry Kissinger did make a non-invasion pledge in 1970.

On the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets had a fairly simple reason for being extra motivated to back down; the missile effort had been a private initiative by Kruschev and not a broader policy, so they were disorganized on defending it; with the private agreement to withdraw our missiles from Turkey, they didn't see it as worth risking nuclear war over. They'd been embarrassed globally by being caught; their own UN Ambassador issuing denials didn't know he was saying things that weren't true. They had limited options.

Within a couple years, Kruschev was out, which says a lot for the man who succeeded Stalin having his power taken away.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
141
116
Bush vetoed war budgets with time tables for withdrawal. Obama/Hillary won't.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Read this speech by Nixon in his first year as President, with nearly half of the casualties in Vietnam yet to occur, and consider the parallels of his speech to Bush's Iraq speeches.

We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.

I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand. As I have indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts.

One of these is the progress which can be or might be made in the Paris talks. An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.

The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces. And I am glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal. As a result, our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June. Now, this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable...
My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war.

--I can order an immediate, precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action.

--Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary-a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.

I have chosen this second course.

It is not the easy way.

It is the right way.

It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace-not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.

In speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America.

Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.

We have faced other crisis in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our course was right.

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.
No timetables... the 'hard but right' choice to stay that will 'improve the situation in the region'... allies would lose faith if we leave... noting the liberals 'are patriotic too'.

The real clincher for the right is the laying out of only two options - 'strong and stay', or 'leave and weak, the easy way out'. The right is nothing if not for opposing appeasement.

Put anything in front of them in those terms, and it's next to impossible for them to say 'take the easy way out, the weak option'. They're very manipulatable as a result.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,887
4,842
126
Need a Democrat president to not fvck up the withdrawal. Republicans will just take it out on the troops and use them as hostages to get more money out of Congress, like Bush has been doing.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Need a Democrat president to not fvck up the withdrawal. Republicans will just take it out on the troops and use them as hostages to get more money out of Congress, like Bush has been doing.
How can you say that, after the orderly, dignified withdrawal the Republicans did in Vietnam.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: Citrix
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....
To get the US out of Iraq, the Democrats need to control the White House.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY