Cutting the funding for Iraq = Playing with fire

[ck4829]

I'd love to see this war ended ASAP, but I think cutting the funding might be a mistake.

Let's look at it historically, the last time someone tried to cut the funding for something, that was Republicans during the Clinton Administration, and they came out as the losers.

I think we should let the baby have his bottle.

The way to end this war IMHO is through the hearts of the People and that means we should turn it into an abomination, investigate and report on human rights, the refugee crisis, contractor abuses, civil war, and how ever since the war began that terrorist attacks have increased worldwide over 600%.

[Monkeyman]

1. I don't know during the Clinton years Replugs took the House

We just got it back. America seems to want our troops out. Just my opinion here

[Greyhound]

3. They do and they don't know, nor care, about all the inside-the-beltway

strategy in fact they are disgusted by it. If we're not careful we will hand the whole thing back to the Republiks.

[Robbien]

2. Not passing an additional emergency budget bill to fund the defense industry = WINNING

Don't ask congress to bring up for a vote an additional budget bill labeled emergency funding.

The defense budget has already been passed. There is no additional emergency. We have known about Iraq for four years and any funding for it should be in the defense budget already passed.

Next item.

[MissWaverly]

4. then how does it end

we have a president determined to have his own way, with no plan or strategy in a war he
started based on bad intelligence, does it just drag on for two more years? The
end will be horrible, everyone knows this, but putting it off is not going to change
things and may make them worse. We may be headed to a "Dunkirk in the sand."

[pwb]

5. Tax the oil companies profits to pay for their war....

Put a big tax on oil profits and the rich in the next bill, after he vetoes this one. give him a shit sandwich every time.

[ck4829]

6. I think we should include some protections for GLBT people in it if we have to send another one to *

[TwilightGardener]

7. Agree--ending the war has to be done responsibly, in stages, in pieces that

the American public will comfortably swallow. I am uncomfortable with cutting funds as a Democrat. I see it as a last resort. I'm a middle-of-the-road gal--I am sure many in the general public might see it the same way. The last thing the Dems want to do is take full responsibility for the war and its aftermath, much as 'Pugs would like us to. It could get very ugly. And I'm not saying that only for political reasons--if John Q. Public believes the GOPer lies about any resulting disaster from cutting the funds, then we will lose the WH, and the Neocon War Plan will continue unabated for another 4-8 years--is that the kind of world we want? is indulging our impatience worth the risk? I say no.

[MissWaverly]

8. I don't think it's impatience, Bush has had 4 years

billions of dollars to play around with in a country that is roughly twice the size of
Idaho, there is no real progress and now they have a plan. The congress is proposing a pull
out to take place over the next year. This is not a war but an unpopular occupation. They
do not want us there. I have read where the prisons we hold have become terror training
camps for the innocents swept up in our security raid. We are feeding the beast every
day that attacks us.

[TwilightGardener]

9. I agree with you that it's a bad situation, but there's no denying that

cutting funding would be logistically and politically drastic--no one wants to go there yet, save a few Dems. Reid/Feingold will not get the support of all of the Dems, let alone any Repugs. I think it's good to toss it out there anyway, and let the public see that it's being considered and that the Dems are serious about ending the war, but we're a long way from it becoming a reality, and I think that's a good thing, at least for now.

[MissWaverly]

10. well, you could be right

I continue to fail to understand how a failed president with a failed policy presiding
over a failed war has so much power.

[TwilightGardener]

12. That is absolutely stunning to me as well--and that power is only

because of the "30-percenters" and GOP Congressmen, who continue to do his bidding.

[MissWaverly]

13. Also the MSM continues to bash Dems as fringe

when they are the majority party.

[Zhade]

16. It'll be done in pieces, alright - pieces of innocent Iraqis and duped soldiers.

I repudiate the lets-get-out-by-extending-the-war-18-months approach - their blood's not on MY hands, because I say get the fuck out NOW.

We invaded. Illegally. We have no right to be there, period.

[ljm2002]

11. Hogwash

First of all, the bill before Congress does not cut funding, it provides it!

Second of all, the bill also mandates a draw-down date (although there are some loopholes) -- which is what the American people want according to all polls, not to mention the '06 elections.

Third of all, the only one who will be cutting funding will be Bush when he vetoes the bill. I hope the Democrats are smart enough to make hay on that point when the time comes.

[MissWaverly]

15. a Republican today mentioned that it would give Dems

a co-ownership of the war if Bush let the bill pass, so what, let them take the responsibility for helping resolve this mess. Four years of failure, but now we have
a name, Gen. Petraeus, he may be good or bad, but a name does not make a successful
campaign or make up for 4 years of failure.

[Zhade]

17. Stunning how many ignore those facts in favor of cheerleading their team.

NT!

[MissWaverly]

19. no justification for being there then why are we STILL there

if the invasion and occupation of Iraq was based on failed intelligence; then why are we still there 4 years later. Why, unless it wasn't a mistake at all but intentional for
reasons unknown.

[ljm2002]

20. What's even more stunning...

...is those on our side who still accept the framing of the rabid right!

We must stop accepting their false frames, and make sure to call them and others on it every time we hear their lying.

The Democrats are not withholding funding. That is not what is happening. Therefore counseling them (us) to be more cautious about this bill is ludicrous.

Sorry, this is a major hot button. When people on our side of the fence can't see through it, then it is futile to expect Middle America to see through it. It is up to us to keep bringing the point home, correcting the lies, and catapulting the truth.

[Jcrowley]

14. Go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3205174

More war is what this bill means.

[Pastiche423]

18. And in the meantime

how much blood is enough? And for what? Political games?

Bullshit!