Should Congress cut funding for the Iraq War?

[OrangeEmpire]

I've heard this question raised by news commentators a number of times in recent weeks.

What are your thoughts?

Should Congress cut funding for the Iraq War?

Why or why not?

I don't see how cutting funding is going to help in any situation, unless you mean cut funding to try to get us to pull out.

Less funding means less supplies/stuff for the guys getting shot at.

If said commentators are having second thoughts about the war, perhaps it would be best to advocate withdrawl rather than budget cuts. Further, this will signal to your adversaries in Iraq (whoever they are) that this war isn't really as much of a priority to you and that perhaps you're losing your will to fight to win. This will more than likely make them bolder and more aggressive.

I can't help but think that reducing funds will only result in more troops coming home in body bags.

This sort of thing is a chronic problem with the U.S military. If you're going to fight, fight to win. Otherwise stay home.

Thoughts?

 

[allvol123]

I don't think the US military has an issue with fighting to win. I believe that is more of a political problem.

 

[utvolpj]

If they truly believe we should not be there then they should vote not to fund it. However, words and actions rarely go hand-in-hand at the Capitol.

Good thing they're on Spring Break without even having a vote on this little issue. They work too hard.

 

[vol_in_ar]

No, they voted for a war, so now we need to see it thourgh.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Going would would certaily help us live up to the very low expectations that the rest of the world has for us. We will have fulfilled every promise that Bin Laden's crowd made.

 

[volinbham]

The thing that bothers me most about the Dem approach is the utter lack of discussion of the consequences.

They harp on the "stay the course" approach of the WH yet all I've ever heard them say is that a withdrawal date will motivate the Iraqi's (of course they've been saying that for about 2-3 years now -- talk about stay the course!)

The approach smells of an attempt to either:

1. stick it to the WH
2. pander to a faction of voters
3. end a war they never supported (some)

In short, the Dem approach makes defeat in Iraq and the associated consequences more likely - yet they won't even discuss those consequences.

If the Dems have their way and it goes really bad -- they'll simply blame Bush.

Will somebody please take some responsibility????

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I understand the political realities and how advocates for a piece of legislation conjure up votes by the use of pork. However, I think in this context this legislation is an enigma! Since the election, Democrats have been asserting the people of the U.S. have given them a mandate to bring about a resolution in Iraq. The Democrats have been for the most part a cohesive group regarding the issue of troop withdrawl, timelines, and for an expeditious resolution to the war. I do not understand why all of the pork was necessary to obtain Democratic votes for a piece of legislation the Democratic party asserts the people gave them a mandate to create and pass?

 

[MG1968]

I do not understand why all of the pork was necessary to obtain Democratic votes for a piece of legislation the Democratic party asserts the people gave them a mandate to create and pass?

simple, the dems know that they can't use a Bush veto of the military appropriation, by itself, against the GOP in 2008. So they stuff the bill full of pork projects so moveon.org and the like can produce ads that follow, "Congressman Foghorn Leghorn supported the Bush veto of a bill that would have created the Internet and Technology Welfare department, which gives free computers and high speed internet access to working families who can't afford it."

What the ad won't say is that it was part of larger legislation that would have defunded the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.