Suppose Congress/Dems did refuse to fund Bush's War

[Bake]

Does anyone here really think King George would admit defeat and bring the troops home?

I, for one, don't think for an instant he would do that. He'd leave them there to die, to the last man and woman, and claim it was OUR fault. And he wouldn't lose a moment of sleep over it.

Bake

[no_hypocrisy]

1. No, he and Rove would blame each subsequent death of a soldier on the

democrats in Congress who wouldn't spend any money for their defensive equipment and food supplies.

[EFerrari]

2. No. The Generals would never allow that, Bake. n/t

[Bake]

11. And he would simply fire those general

And hire ones like Petraeus who are willing to do his bidding. Look at all the generals he's fired already, starting with Shinseki.

Bake

[EFerrari]

13. I hear you. But, there is a limit to what the generals would take.

And with national sentiment on their side . . . they'd be in a good position.

[Tom Joad]

3. This way America is watching the Dems support for Bush's war. Again.

[MadHound]

4. He would be forced to bring the troops home

He couldn't dip into the 532.8 annual military budget without risking Republicans running up impeachment charges. He couldn't keep the troops over there, if for no other reason that the mercs would go home without pay, and he literally wouldn't have gas for his war machine. Not to mention it's hard to fight a war without ammunition and other such needs.

Defunding has worked before, it can work again. It's sure a hell of a lot better option than continuing to fund endless war, death, injury and destruction. Now that's crazy.

[Donnachaidh]

6. you really think the Republicans would move on impeachment?

Not meant as a snark, but I don't see that EVER happening. Perhaps, and it's a big perhaps, they might discuss it if he had Pat Robertson beheaded at a press conference on the White House Lawn. MAYBE.

I don't see it EVER happening.

[MadHound]

14. I'm talking of defunding the war, not impeachment

In fact I explicitly state that the Dems wouldn't have to go the impeachment route. Instead all that they have to do is hold up those supplemental war funding bill in committee and deprive Bush of the cash he needs to keep this war going.

Sorry if I was unclear.

[onenote]

10. "Defunding has worked before" -- Link?

[MadHound]

15. Go dig into the history of the Vietnam War

Educate yourself rather than allowing others to do so for you.

[onenote]

16. I'm afraid you are the one in need of some educating about the Vietnam war

Congress did not "defund" the Vietnam war until after the last combat troops were gone. The Paris Peace accords were signed in January 1973 and provided for the complete removal of US combat troops within 60 days and, in fact, US combat troops were gone by March 1973. A bill that would've defunded any military support of the Vietnamese army passed in June (after the combat troops were gone) but was vetoed by Nixon. Ultimately, bills cutting off military aid (money, not personnel) for the South Vietnamese army passed, and Saigon fell (in 1975).

But US troops were not pulled out of Vietnam because of the enactment of a defunding bill, but rather because of the terms of the Paris treaty.

[Bluerthanblue]

5. the Dems blew the 'perception' advantage when they compromised on

this bill-

We should have sent him the same bill- Like it or not- he'd be the one refusing to 'fund the war' if he vetoed it.

Now, if Congress votes against this bill- wouldn't it just come up again?? As for * leaving the troops to die- he's sending them to die, and smirking about it- joking about the 'expected deaths' to come on today's news confrence/press talk. He might be willing to leave them there, but i doubt the American public would sit still for that-

How well has he truly funded them so far??? the contractors perhaps, but the actual troops???-

he can only be stopped if we refuse to let him demand his own way- At what point is 'enough' enough???

peace,
blu

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. He won't have any choice.

He'd declare victory and then they'd come home.

[Skip Intro]

8. The same people who equated war hero Max Cleland with osama

would have the Dems branded as helping "the terrorists" kill our troops, don't think they didn't already have those knives sharpened. And it would have worked. And we would have lost all in 08. repukes, the slimy war-mongery type that would use the troops as pawns, would reign instead.

Faced with that scenario, what else could the Dems do, at this point?

[mmonk]

9. Depends on where he could pull other funds from.

We can exercise the sole right of congress to end the occupation by deauthorizing the war.

[Bake]

12. And I think he would continue to ignore Congress

Just as he has done for his entire tenure. The Pukes will do nothing about it, certainly not move toward impeachment. My guess, in fact, is that he'd declare martial law in the US and declare himself dictator, and the Pukes would go along with it.

I don't think we've ever had a more bullheaded president in our history, one more dismissive of Congress. What amazes me is the number of Republicans in Congress who have been more than willing to go along with him.

Bake

[Initech]

17. The stubborn jackass is way too smug to ever admit defeat.