Are you listening to Randi? If we cut off funding, Shrub will leave the

[napi21]

troops there with NOTHING! She is insisting on thinking this through before insisting on either stopping the funding of the war or simply not bringing the appropriations bill to the floor. She said she doesn't trust this President, and neither do I!!!! I've said this all along. If we insist on stopping the funds, the troops on the ground in Iraq will suffer! I don't want that, and I don't think you do either!

[peace13]

1. He has left them there to die already.

He insists on killing them, get that straight.

On edit... I will add that he has supplied dirty water, minimal food and improper armour.

[napi21]

4. NO! I'm talking worse! I'm talking about no more shipments of

fully armored vehicles, no more shipments of ANYTHING! It's horrible that they have to be there at all, but FAR WORSE to abandon them!

[peace13]

16. Yes he has driven our troops into harms way.

He has lied us into war. He would leave them there to die. Our job is to bring them home. What I am saying is that it is all sadness. I do believe that he has sent them there to denude our armed services. Certainly this illegal regime understands that by doing so they undermine the security of our nation. You will not out wait these people. Cutting the funding is a risk we will have to take but do not think for one minute that by doing so that WE are the ones harming the troops.

[JuniperLea]

22. How can there be "more"...

When he hasn't sent them any to begin with?

[0007]

24. Never happen baby! junior's next stop would be the Hague

Miloševic’s defense is he was defending his country from terrorism. junior defense would be the same.

[Booster]

36. He's holding our troops as hostages - plain and simple - until he

gets what he wants. Just a petulant child who really doesn't give a shit about the troops.

[napi21]

38. Petulan child is a very good description of Shrub. I really can see

him stomping his feet and saying "NO! Damn it! I'm the CIF and I'm doin it MY WAY!"

THAT'S the very attitude that scares the hell out of me! It's the irationality of a child and nobody can change a kid like that.

[Booster]

44. Where's "The Nanny" when you need her.

[napi21]

45. Or the damn "time out" chair???? I forgot about the Super Nanny.

Gee, maybe we should contact HER! She does really well with all those bratty kids on her shows, and some of them are ALMOST AS BAD as Shrub! Damn, if she could force HIM to behave, I'd be willing to pay her BIG BUCKS!!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Bush may try that, but the Generals would never allow it. They'd see him removed from office first.

Do you really think Admiral Fallon would allow that to happen?

edited to change General to Admiral Fallon :)

[snappyturtle]

6. Thank you! I heard her earlier today and I couldn't believe what

I was hearing!

[sandnsea]

7. Where was the WMD special ops strategy

Where was the strategy to protect our troops by securing suspected WMD sites before we invaded. The Generals didn't question that.

Some Generals care about troops. Some care about their careers and promotions. That should be crystal clear by now.

[napi21]

12. Fallon doesn't have the power to remove Shrub!

No I don't think Fallon or any other military man would agree to abandon the troops, but they don't have the power or the money to bring them home even if they laid out the plan to do so.

I'm sorry, but I think we've all seen how arrogant this man can be when anyone tries to fight him. In a standoff, I'm not sure I would want to be his opposer. I wouldn't give in, and neiter would he!

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. Fallon can't remove the shrub, but he can sure as hell see that CONGRESS does.

Nah...I think Randi's way off base here. I don't doubt for one minute the psycho wouldn't try that, but he'd never get away with it. He'd just finish off his party for GOOD. I wonder what Hagel, Warner, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe would have to say if he tried to do that? I'm sure they wouldn't remain silent.

[AndyTiedye]

39. Bush Can Do It, and He Can Get Away With It, Because the Repiglickin Media Will Back Him

[zeemike]

29. you are right and Randi is wrong on this one

And i like her a lot.
But no general or commander would allow his troops to be in such a positron. And if he did he should be cort marshaled and demoted.

[Liberal In Texas]

42. I'm with you, zeemike. I like Randi bunches, but she is dead wrong about this. The only way this

thing is going to end is to cut off the money. The only thing Congress is doing by pouring more into it is to act as enablers.

As I said elsewhere, cutting off money to the CONTRACTORS first would go a long way to ending it. If Shrub's buddies aren't able to make obscene profits from no bid contracts, about half the incentive to continue the occupation would be over.

[Kajsa]

3. I don't trust him, either.

I don't know how he will deal with cutting off funding.

[Maggie_May]

5. That would not happen

Bush would be forced to bring them home. The press and the pressure would be way to much for the GOP. No way would that happen. We have enough money right now to bring our guys home.

[sandnsea]

8. I think he would too

They aren't leaving the oil.

[Old and In the Way]

18. An estimated $100TT worth of oil in Iraq's reserves.

Getting more valuable every day.

When are the American people going to demand an honest discussion as to why we are there? Had Bush-Cheney made their intentions to grab the oil known in 2003, perhaps we could have had a national debate as to whether this was in our best economic/security interests and if there may have been a better use of the $400BB surplus to reduce our dependency on ME oil. Instead they lied to us about "a gathering threat" of Iraqi WMD.

We'll be over $1TT invested in this quagmire and I think it's now obvious that we'll never see this oil liberated for the benefit of Republican Big Oil.

[Rainscents]

9. Please...

Don't get sucked into FEAR! This is what Bush (Dark) wants people to think. I would say this... There would be HUGE uprising!

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Emergency TRANSPORTATION funds ,who's voting against that?

The 16% benefiting from this farce ,who supports them? What does all this support,, IMPEACHMENT!!! I'll forgive you for last november Nancy ,now use or lose your Clout to do the right thing.

[Maggie_May]

14. I with you I am not giving Nancy a break

No more funding for this war. Bring our troops home! Its very easy we have the votes in the congress that we put there now use them! Keep the pressure on the congress.

[Bitwit1234]

11. I think supplies will routinely get to them, but I think that

the funds wouldn't exist to train and send more of our troops over to Iraq.

[napi21]

20. We don't have any proof of that. I would hope you wre right, but

none of us have ever seen a person like Shrub before. I sure haven't and I'm 65! For the last 6+ years he has Never DONE WHAT ANY RATIONAL PERSON WOULD DO.

You say Don't Fall for the FEAR CARD, and I don't think I am. I'm looking at his actions for as long as I've seen him in public life, and I sure don't like or trust what I see! That's not falling for the fear card, that's rational observation!

[doublethink]

13. I think there would be an American Peoples Revolt .......

From Congress/Military/Citizens ...... and we'd hang Bush out to dry. He'd be done. I would personally start a $ Fund to get our troops home while the shit hits the fan. And I bet I wouldn't have any shortage of donations, volunteers or what have you. This would surely show how MAD bush is. Interesting, Peace.

[EFerrari]

15. It would never happen. Randi needs a chill pill. n/t

[LisaM]

17. Why can't they cut off funds to CONTRACTORS?

That's what I don't understand.

[napi21]

26. Because the expenses aren't split out like that. Hell, we can't even

get our congress critters to pass a clean bill without any attachments, and you want them to vote on an itemized expense budget?????? The DOD nor the WH wouldn't ever even submit such a thing.

[Liberal In Texas]

40. BINGO. Fund the troops. Stop the $ to CONTRACTORS and divert that to local Iraqi companies to

rebuild their own country. Create jobs and get the damn lights and water back on. The insurgency will start to ebb like magic.

What's wrong with these people? This is so obvious.

[Proud_Lefty]

19. They already get nothing

The troops have to buy their own boots before being deployed. The billions and billions of dollars already given to them only line the pockets of Halliburton, Blackwater, and all the other corporate and political whores. With the majority of the people screaming to get out of there, they can easily turn a deaf ear because the profits are just so enormous, even worth arresting the anti-war people. Cut off the money and the whole game changes. Bush is capable of doing anything crappy to the troops and us, no matter what we give him. The more we give in, the more he shits on us. At least that's the way I see it.

[JuniperLea]

21. STEP AWAY FROM THE KOOL AID!

Don't you see? They are playing you like a fiddle! They are playing Randi too.

I've had to question much of what she has said recently... and I've been a hard-core Randi fan for a very long time.

[ThomWV]

25. Horseshit! Does Everyone Forget That There is a DOD Budget Too?

Let them stop building an aircraft carrier or a replacement submarine, let them hold off on orders for new swimming pools at army camps, let them stop flying training missions, let them stop ordering thermal underware for a few months.

[sandnsea]

35. That's the basis of the point

There IS a DoD budget - just enough to keep the troops at the new permanent bases in Iraq. Which is what Bush will do while the Republican Party and the media blames every additional death on the lack of war funding.

That same media that is pushing Democrats to defund today. Yeah, they'd turn right around and beat the hell out of Democrats next month when Republicans change the propaganda points again.

[sampsonblk]

27. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in years

Randi should know that the US military is not living paycheck to paycheck. They will be fine. They will have food. They will have transportation.

Its long past time to stop paying for this war. That does not mean to stop paying for the troops.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. It's about time the Democrats take the bull by the horns and threaten him with Impeachment

if he intends to keep the troops there without additional funds. If he doesn't listen, they could have the charges for Impeachment drawn up in a nanosecond. All they need are the Downing Street Memos.

[iamthebandfanman]

30. he will

but do you think people would really tolerate that or this war any further?
id expect the white house catching fire if he did something like that.

[Individualist]

31. That's her opinion

Randi tends to state her opinions as if they were absolute fact.

[Ilsa]

32. Telll the Rethuglicans in Congress that * is holding the troops hostage.

That's the best explanation for it. Bush will let them flap in the wind and blame the Democrats for cutting off the funding. And * has the nerve to get pissed about MoveOn using the word "betray" with regards to Petraeus?

[mmonk]

33. It will never happen.

I like Randi alot but there is no way defunding this war will leave the troops bare. All that spending can from operational military funding and expenditures.

[nini]

34. Of course he will

I'm so amazed at how people think he'll do the right thing if forced. HE DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE TROOPS OR THEY WOULDN'T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why is it so hard for people to see this? The Dems only have so much control - it's the asshole who gets to decide since he's the commander in chief and he has abused that power from the beginning.

Randi is dead right on this one.

[tabasco]

37. Wow, you seem really concerned.

Thanks for your concern.

[Bluebear]

41. Fine. We will hold a telethon and get them home. Trust me. nt

[backscatter712]

43. Fully Funded Withdrawl is the new buzzword

The premise is simple - use the House of Representatives' power of the purse to create a bill that allocates $N billion for the explicit purpose of redeploying all U.S. servicemembers and equipment from Iraq to the United States. The chickenhawks can't say we're abandoning the troops, we're giving them everything they need to survive, AND COME HOME. Because of the Constitutional power of the purse, the President can be required to spend that money and bring the troops home.

That's how we do it.

How do we force this bill down Bush's throat? Simple. Filibuster every defense spending bill except for the one that does a fully funded withdrawl. Filibuster for weeks, until the Congressional GOP cries uncle and signs off on it. Then send it to Bush. He'll veto it. The next day, send him the exact same bill. Lather, rinse repeat, while proclaiming loudly to everyone who'll listen, that Bush hates the troops because he won't sign off on the fully funded withdrawl. Eventually, he'll either cave and sign it, or the Congressional GOP will cave, and give us a 2/3 majority to override the veto.

All we need is a Congress with some testicles, and we can shove it down his throat. Grow some balls and force the GOP to cave for a change.

[TahitiNut]

46. Complete and utter nonsense.

There'd be bids for who could do the tarring and who could do the feathering. Congresscritters in his party would drop him like a hot rock for fear that the voters would get even. It'd make Craig look like a fond farewell.

Hell ... it make me hope he'd try. I'd bring all the chicken feathers I could find and help pay for the tar.

[Blue_Roses]

47. I definitely agree

Bush has us between I-ROCK ( sorry for the pun) and a hard place. I don't think some people get it. :shrug:

[Spazito]

48. I have a question....

Why can't the Dems in the House put forward a bill funding the withdrawal of the troops while refusing to bring the DOD (Iraq funding) to the floor? I realize bush would veto the bill funding the withdrawal but then the Dems bring the bill back to the floor, vote on it and send it back, yet again, to bush?

At the same time they are doing that, the Dems keep on message and make it clear it is bush vetoing the funds for the troops, it is not the Dems.

To merely not bring the Iraq funding bill to the floor without replacing it with a bill most Americans would support, the withdrawal of the troops would do exactly what Randi says but if they bring their own bill forward instead then they can compare what they, the Dems, are trying to do for the troops versus bush who would be the one refusing to fund the troops.

[peace13]

49. They don't bring that bill forward because they don't want to.

It is that simple. If they wanted to, they could. It is a sad fact. My guess is that there is a huge undercurrent of blackmail in DC. I call on Pelosi and her cohorts in crime to do the right thing for the troops and let the chips fall where they may. How much blood will this Congress spill before they stand up?