Why would Democrats cut funding for the troops?

Question

Wouldn't it be more reasonable for them to increase funding for our BRAVE soldiers? That way they can sit back on the side lines and watch them fight for our freedom.

Answer 1

This is another of their "I support the troops but not the war" oxymorons. They attach strings to their support... sure you can have money for your armor, guns and basic human needs, but I want [insert extortion terms] first. It's pure extortion and I am glad President Bush is not falling for it and not playing into their hands. To play games with the lives of the men and women who are defending our country, sacrificing their lives for our freedom and liberty is disgraceful and sickening.

Answer 2

Look liberals aren't going to stop funding our troops, they just want a time table to bring our troops that been extended from 12 months to 15 months, just about the time they pack to leave they'll extend their time again Sit on sideline is that what your doing , you need to suit up and join and fight for your President. Tell him you'll go over and take a one troops place and send them home. Go on make your President proud of you and when your laying in the street of Iraq after rigors mortise has set in flies swarming you or your head rolling around with your eyes starring at the stars . You'll be put on the list of no returns and Bush will say, "I'm proud of you boy". Go on make your great President proud of you.

Answer 3

Terrorists are theyre allies thats why.
Imus be seein Muslims again in the wood pile.
Imus be C-In those dumb Kennedys boozing again.
Imus be stupid being on Congress today.

Liberals are a Joke. hAHAHHAHAHA.
Laugh on them.

Remember Vietnam.
Liberals would leave our forces "naked" in Iraq Techwise.
Someone is funding the Libs via Terrorisim.
Cash Cow or Game??

Answer 4

"At present, Congress has before it, for consideration in committee, an Iraq funding bill which will keep the war going perhaps through the end of President Bush's term. It would order the privatization of Iraq's oil and open the door for the President to order an attack on Iran without congressional authorization.

"Democrats were brought to power not to spread war, but to stop it. The administration took us into war for oil. We should not be confirming that purpose by promoting privatization in the Iraq funding bill.

"The President desires to attack Iran without Congress asserting its constitutional authority. We should be asserting our constitutional authority to restrain another administration abuse of power."

That's the real argument for stopping the funding but my impression is you'd rather believe the fox news version of reality like your question so clearly shows

Answer 5

You have been listening to Bush again, funding for the troops will always be provided, it is Bush who will actually cut funding for the troops if he vetoes the Democrats plan which provides more than enough funding for the troops until next year.

Answer 6

They provided MORE money than the president asked for.

What's not to like?

They are funding the troops, supporting the troops, and looking for a way to end this thing sooner than later.

Do you want to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years?

Answer 7

I still haven't come to grips with this yet. I mean what has happened to our country that we have a group of people in here that actually would do something like this? Sometimes I think God is punishing us like with the plague only it's liberals/demo's.

Answer 8

Who ever said democrats were reasonable? They want to keep the money for themselves. Clinton did it and it's also the reason they get pissed off when there is a war that takes the money they could be sticking in their pockets.

Don't get crazy dems, I'm not a republican.

Answer 9

Democrats support the troops. It will be up to the President whether he signs the bill to fund their continued presence in his war for a time table that he himself set forth. All of them are playing politics. We will see who blinks first.

Answer 10

Nobody is cutting funding for the troops. In fact, only Bush is threatening to with his veto of the proposed funding bills.

Both the House and Senate versions of the recent funding bills contain the full funding that Bush and the Pentagon requested. So, any claim that these bills cut or reduce funding is just flat inaccurate.

What Bush doesn't like is the conditions Congress wants to attach, namely the withdrawal deadlines. But even Bush has acknowledge in press conferences that Congress is entitled to set a timetable for withdrawal. Bush just doesn't like it.