What would be the effect on the troops from a rejection of the Iraq supplemental budget request?

[bigtree]

. . . either Bush's or in the Democratic compromise legislation announced in both houses yesterday . . .?

Something of those supplementals are going to the troops. Who are the folks who are vouching for the proposition that if Congress rejects the entire funding package, the troops won't be affected by the withholding of funds? Even Kucinich accepted the 'Out of Iraq Caucus' amendment which would directly provide funds to effect their withdrawal (even though he says the funds are already 'in the pipeline').

It's amazing how little concern is expressed by the proponents for the effects of an approach which openly argues that the lack of money would force a reduction in the mission. Obviously, the expectation is that the commanders wouldn't be able to carry out their 'missions' and will urge a withdrawal. Or, that Bush won't continue without money for the troops he says he needs. Who thinks Bush will just stand down?

Who is guaranteeing the safety, security, and well-being of the soldiers in the aftermath of such a cut-off? Where do they anticipate the coercive shortfalls would occur in Iraq? Where would the effects be felt first? Where are they assuming that a command which has no compunction about keeping the troops hunkered down in sandbagged huts in the middle of the warring factions - knowing they are being killed at a rate of 1-3 a day - would feel the effects of the cut-off? How soon? To what degree would they expect Bush to tolerate our troops experiencing ANY shortfall or scarcity of resources before he bends?

Why is it seen as a 'courageous' course to direct our attack on the occupation by denying the funding which is intended for the troops, instead of pressuring Bush directly?

Would the effect on the troops be immediate? Would the effects be made apparent by those now in command and control over the forces?

How do they expect to control all of these concerns by just having our legislators vote 'no' on the funding which is intended for the troops bogged down in the middle a combat mission in Iraq? What happens to the funds for those in the region who are in supporting roles?

What do they think will be the immediate effect? Short term? Long term? *Who will suffer? Will they know?

Do they have any idea at all what the actual effect of such a vote would be on the troops? Are they privileged to any data or analysis of the effect? What funds are the the military working with now? How much of that money - which has already been appropriated - reached the troops?

What would be the effect of such a cut-off on the safety, security, and well-being of the troops as we waited for Bush to bend?