Question 1: Is supporting funding for the war the same as supporting war?

[LittleClarkie]

Watching people this week get all angry at Kerry for saying he was going to vote for the supplimental got me thinking about what seemed to be their rationale.

Several folk out there seemed to think that if we stopped paying for the war, that the war would stop and the soldiers would come home. Or perhaps they had a vague notion that sending money for the war is the same as supporting the war, and that if you don't support the war you shouldn't vote to send money.

That bugs me. Hell, if they're not coming home soon, I certainly don't want to leave the troops without stuff they need. But I don't even think we know what exactly is going to be covered in the supplimental. Do we?

[GRLMGC]

1. Oh for sure

They need supplies and armor. They shouldn't be there in the first be place but they shouldn't be out there without supplies either. That's beyond cruel.

[sandnsea]

2. Here's the deal

Who is actually for immediate withdrawal, consequences be damned? Almost nobody. Even the Woolsey plan calls for security, reconstruction, etc. Not immediate withdrawal. Nader and Kucinch called for the same thing. You can't say you're against the occupation but your plan is security, elections, and reconstruction before we get out. It's the same old thing. It's easy to be against something if you never have to be responsible for implementing a solution. That's the problem with the far left. Nobody ever nails them down on anything after they say no no no.

[TayTay]

3. I eventually flashed back to the Condiliar confirmation hearings

And I remember Kerry taking Condiliar to task for the budgeting finesse that the *ies were employing. (I probably should have gone to this rather than pissing and moaning about the old IWR vote, but sometimes I have attacks of rank stupidity. Sorry. I will endeavor to get a brain that works, sigh!)

Anyway, I posted an excerpt, courtesy of the NYTimes transcript of the confrimation hearing that was extremely interesting and directly references Iraq and the money. (Long damn quote in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x14429#14697)

Anway, note the extremely careful questioning in here about the budget and the veiled references to the lies that the Admin is telling in order to keep the true cost of the Iraq debacle from the American people. (Bastards.) Since this was a public hearing, there is a lot of 'I know what you guys are doing, but I can't say it in public' type comments. But Kerry did admonish Condiliar about coming clean on the amount of money the taxpayers are going to have to come up with before we ever finish up in Iraq.

Lord, look at the comments about burning through equipment in Iraq. Stuff that lasts 7 years on the carrier, breaks down after 1 year due to extreme conditions in the desert. Hmmm, I remember thinking at the time he said this that there is so much more to this, but Kerry and Biden can't say everything in public. This ain't over yet folks, stay tuned. A lot of that money is going to replace equipment that the carelessness of the * Admin has just used up. Idiots!

[elshiva]

7. I think we need to get out as soon as possible, but

I know it would be irresponsible to cut and run without efforts at rebuilding and etc. I still think JK voted for the supplemental because of his deep concern that the soldiers were not equipped and protected. We simply can't just leave them there unsafe in the desert.
Yes, I hate this bloody war, but what is there to do...

[paulk]

4. I've posted before about the "cut and run" contingent

here at DU.

The whole idea that if you don't support an immediate withdrawal you're "pro-war" sets my teeth on edge. Of course troops in the field must be funded - disagreeing with the reasons they are there is a different issue. It just gives the naysayers an opportunity to trash Kerry and whatever other Democrat flavor of the week is on the shit list.

Reality based posters (and politicians) know there is no alternative.

It seems some noise can be made about where the money is going, and how it's going to get paid for - to be honest, I haven't read Kerry's statement on the supplemental. I've been very busy out here in the real world, and expect the next few months to be the same - so I haven't had the time to follow as closely as I'd like.

But, in the end, the supplemental has to be passed.


As an aside, I've been thinking, with the IWR thread and some of the interesting discussions going on around that -

I don't think Kerry's vote on the IWR was a political decision - I think he honestly felt Iraq was a threat, and giving the president the IWR's powers was the best way to force weapon inspectors in. If Kerry made a "political" decision, it was voting against the 87 million appropriation (which, in retrospect, I think was a mistake) and the reason he did it was because of the pressure put on him by the anti war faction of the party, who were upset over his IWR vote.

[TayTay]

5. I think you're right

That Walter Shapiro book I read, "One-Car Caravan" pretty much conceded that the vote agains tthe $87 Billion was forced by the Dean surge. Sigh!

[ginnyinWI]

6. those of us who watch JK closely

know that he isn't likely to be swayed from his principles that easily!

I too, think that he considered Saddam a threat, and wanted Bush to do what he said he'd do--use other means first. This was before we all knew the full extent of Bush's radical agenda, and he still had some credibility left with Dems.

By the time the $87 billion vote came up,he had lost that credibility, and JK voted to protest Bush's borrow-and-spend tactics, which was also a way of protesting Bush's war in general. He knew the money would go to the troops anyway. If he had voted for the money, he would have been attacked for that, too.