Should the democrats author a bill to cut all funding for the war?

Answer 1

That would mean they would have to have the courage of their convictions.

Instead they will offer a nonbinding resolution and shout to everyone who will listen (including our enemies) "See we did something to end this horrible war."

They won't do anything but talk because they are heinous hypocrites. First they vote for the millitary action, now they've changed their mind.

Answer 2

If they all want to be looking for new jobs come next election sure. Despite the fact that there is very little public support for this war, people do not want the troops undersupplied. People do not want to hear that our troops do not have what they need to succeed whether they like the war or not. So cutting funding for the war would end up with democrats who are up for election in '08 to get run over and thus we would be back where we started with a republican majority.

Answer 3

I think for once in their lives they should stand behind the vote they already had. To support the war efforts & our soldiers. If you cut all funding exactly how will we get our troops home? Are will we sacrifice them for a liberal belief of free freedom?
A weekly or even daily brief about war does not mean they know or understand the entire picture in Iraq. The new head of US military, Lt General Petraeu, in Iraq said that cutting funding would be determential to the troops & their morale. General
Abizaid said he sensed despair in Washington, DC in congress but not in Iraq with the soldiers. I do not believe Congress should lead our military as we have military leaders. Quitters never win, & winners never quit!

Answer 4

No,
Because soldiers would suffer even more. They have to buy their own equipment and everything. There are not enough bullet proof vehicles and the soldiers don't even own bullet proof vests.
If they start cutting the funding why not just tell them to start digging their own graves because the army may not have enough money to buy bomb detectors or tools that are needed to fix planes, or cars, or tanks. I think if the Dem do that then I will be voting Republican when the next election comes.

Answer 5

NO

It would be just another waste of time and money.

I would like to see a bill that said they only had 30 days a year to take care of all Congressional business. Then cut their pay back to the original $5.00 a day if they showed up for work.

Go big Red Go

Answer 6

They did with Clinton, that's why our military was sent in lacking modern equipment. (For those who's heads just exploded, please look it up, you will find the biggest slashes to the military happened in Clinton's term and the cuts included vehicles and personal gear)

If the Dem's want to show them selves as weak and anti-military (some have no trouble with that to begin with) then by all means cut spending.

But I would like to think they are not that dumb.

Then again they are offering up an inexperienced pretty face and the wife of an impeached lying, philandering scumbag as "legitimate" contenders for president, so I have to admit my faith in their potential is starting to flag heavily.

It's like the Impeachment thing, so far the Democrats have been smart, they know impeaching the President will lose them 08, they also know cutting off funding will do the same.

but just in case I am keeping a bottle of my favorite champagne ready for if they decide to impeach or cut off spending.

Mmmmmm I cant wait.

Answer 7

Sure, if they want to say to the American people "Hey, we really DON'T CARE about our fighting men and women, some of whom are your friends and family. In fact, we think so little of our military personnel that we don't want to give them any more supplies or reinforcements. Furthermore, we don't want to immediately pull them out of situation that we don't think they can win. They need to stay there and let a few more hundred die before we get around to pulling them around in 2008. In other words...Troops, sit and spin!"

If that is the message Democrats are wanting to convey, they're doing a great job so far.

Answer 8

No, because that would further endanger the troops fighting. What they should do is author a bill with a clear cut exit strategy that can be utilized before this year is over so that we can get all of our men and women home.

Answer 9

Er, they dont hafta?

they said no to Bush's Iraq plan...

the only thing congress has say in is whether or not THEY wanna fund the war. they said no...

He can get his money another way...
Its called the balance of the branches...

they cant make a bill saying that the president cannot use any money to fund the troops.. thats retarded.

But if they did i think it would prove how dumb the Dem's are...

Cut off all funding of the war.. therefore.. the soldiers would have no guns.
they would have no kevlar jackets
they would have no knives, ammo, etc...
they would have no bases

they would have no airplanes
they would have no helicopters
they would have no ships

Yea that outta safely bring home our troops! GO DEMS!

Answer 10

If they did, it would just be a political ploy and waste of time. If passed by a majority, it would then go to the president, who would veto it. There is no way the needed votes for a veto override could be mustered. Congrass should focus on the things it can accomplish. Their number one goal should be immigration reform.

Answer 11

No, BUT, they should author a bill to cut most of it. Since the "war" was supposed to be a military action against terrorists we should get back on track and set up a series of small undercover regiments of S.F. to hunt terrorists, and set up branches to train military and police there, but bring home the brunt of our military say 8/10ths of them. And please idiotic republicans, remember, Dems were pro action when w were fighting terrorists, not taking over a country so daddys son could save face.