Cutting the war purse strings. Help me understand.

[justiceischeap]

Lets say for the sake of argument that Congress does indeed cut funds for the war. In theory, this brings the troops home however, what if, Congress cuts the funds and B*sh decides to keep the troops there—after all he is the decision-maker and decider. <== That's sarcasm BTW.

How does this then effect our troops in battle? Do they go without equipment? Do the Dems then have to back down and refund the war?

I seriously would like to know how this is a positive thing for the troops if B*sh says F it to Congress and keeps the troops in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan?

I don't see the argument that "He can't keep them there if he doesn't have money" working because he's just whacked enough to do that or make some sort of new executive law that allows him to untap the money faucet.

I am most certainly for bringing the troops home and putting an end to all the killing and maiming but it seems this is like a game of poker and someone's bluff is going to be called—in the end hurting the one's we're trying to help—our troops.

[mdmc]

1. The troops get fucked

just like they have been getting.

We should have never gone in to Iraq, now we need to make sure that our exit doesn't make it worse.

[bdrube]

2. Congress wouldn't cut off all funds.

They would appropriate just enough to facilitate an orderly
withdrawal over a set period of time.

Of course, Chimpy could then redirect money from the remainder
of the Pentagon's budget, at which point you'd have a true
Constitutional crisis on your hands.

[harveyc]

6. You are right except for one thing ...

as I understand it Shrub cannot redirect money from the DoD budget.

The Iran Contra affair pointed this out and these funds were even external to the DoD budget.

It would be "more" than a Constitutional crisis for him to do this.

[Lost-in-FL]

3. I DON'T CARE!!!

Bring the troops NOW!! In 20 MINUTES!!! We have now Congress, we can do that!!! :sarcasm:

But seriously. I don't like this of cutting funding just like that. Funding also gives money for Veterans programs if I am not mistaken and some of the wounded soldiers returning to the US or those with mental health problems take advantage of many of the VA programs. I do not know how they go about the budget for defense, what goes for what, etc. Assuming that what you say is true, that * will try to take the troops hostage, funding for those programs would be cut. That would be terrible.

[ladywnch]

5. well, I'm wondering if what you're saying is really true....

The funds for Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT part of the Federal Budget. junior has made very sure to keep the war 'off the books'. The VA benefits and the Pentagon funds are in the budget. He would have to siphon off funds (kind of embezzling) to continue. Not saying that he wouldn't do that, but <that> would an actual misappropriation of funds....and dare it say it......an (another) impeachable offense.

[Bitwit1234]

4. CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE GUTS

To come right out with a resolution to revoke bush's war powers. THAT IS ALL IT TAKES. If bush does not listen he is in violation- direct violation of congress and the constitution, which says congress has the war powers. If bush continued to defy congress I know it is treason. The only way bush can declare war and then get congress to go along is if we are attacked. I think he knows the difference. I think he wants to provoke Iran so he can say they fired the first shot.

[harveyc]

7. That is all it takes! ...

or defunding the Iraqi war, leaving enough funding to get our soldiers out of Iraq safely.

It seems people are trying to find excuses for why Congress doesn't have the Constitutional powers to end this failed war?

[harveyc]

8. An article on this ... "Defund the War"

pretty interesting ...

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10285

[justiceischeap]

9. Thank you! (EOM)