The Democrats can't get 60 votes for withdrawl so they continue on a fools errand why don't they cut funding?

Answer 1

Can't get 60 votes for that either

Answer 2

Republicans would like that , then they can say oh, they don't care about the troops and if they don;t cut funds, it's they had a chance but they voted not to cut funding the war. Just a bunch of old nothings , old hypocrites they are the ones that should be worried about there party the way all these Congressman and Senator's are sex starved . They'll take on prostitutes , men just let them get some sex , their wives are to old or cold they have to go elsewhere. You know why their wives are cold take a look at at all of them , they don't know how to warm them up. If you were a woman would you want one of them , No Thank You.

Answer 3

To me, it's partly cowardice and partly political calculation.

If the Dems pulled the plug tomorrow, I really think that many Repub pols would secretly be relieved. They could repeat "we were winning until the Democrats cut the funding" until the end of time, thus absolving themselves of any responsibility for the stupidity and poor execution of the occupation (we already won the war) in the first place. And bogus as it seems, I really think that that excuse would find support among many people. Look at all the idiots who think we should have stayed in Vietnam another decade.

Politicians, whoever they are, want to retain power.

Answer 4

They would still need those same 60 votes to cut funding. And with all the pieces added onto spending bills (both Repub and Dem) for their pet projects, that makes it even tougher to get the 60 votes they need ....... actually they'd need 67 votes to make it veto proof from the president.

Answer 5

How many of the "democrats" voted for this war? With one or 2 exceptions ALL OF THEM!!!!!
And so now it isn't over, it isn't "tidy" enough for them, and they want to bail. When the drums were beating for war President Bush said REPEATEDLY, TIME AND TIME AGAIN.........
THIS WILL BE A LONG AND DRAWN OUT WAR!!!!

Now I realize this country now has the attention span of a gnat ( my apologies to that strata of the insect world ), but just what did you think he meant by LONG AND DRAWN OUT??
Perhaps it might last longer than an episode of "Friends". Goodness gracious, it might last longer than one of Elizabeth Taylors husbands!?!?!?
Get real people. The United States has lost fewer than 4,000 troops in over 4 years of fighting. We lost that many men on Omaha beach in 4 HOURS on June 6th 1944.

Americans who aren't in the Armed Forces, or have family in the Armed Forces, haven't sacrificed ONE SINGLE THING for this war effort. There is no gas rationing, no rationing of tires, no Victory Gardens. There is NOTHING, impinging on the everyday life of America to indicate that we are even fighting a war right now.

So what is the big broohaha about surrendering and retreating out of Iraq. In a single word it is POLITICS.

If ANYONE out there Honestly thinks for one second that Hillary, or Barrack, or ANYONE else is going to wave a magic wand and it will all be better tomorrow you are mentally deficient to the 10th power.

Nixon ran on the same platform in 68 and when did we finally leave??? 6 years later???? Yeah right.

Congress will not cut funding because the second they do they will be removed from office, and I'm not talking about waiting until election day either. I have no doubt that the states themselves will remove them. There is no way they are going to let them hang our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out to dry like that.

Answer 6

If they cut funding then you could make an argument that the house doesn't care about the soldiers if they will leave them unfunded in a war zone. A cheap tactic, but it's not worth making soldiers suffer and possibly but their lives at risk over a petty political squabble.

Answer 7

While cutting the funds would end our Iraq involvement it would cause the majority of American to turn them out in 08. This way they can continue to posture against the war, against Bush, and against the will of the majority,and still collect cash from the far left, who haven't understood how they are being played

Answer 8

Because it requires them to vote on it and going on record voting to cut funding, is like saying, " I don't care about your sons and daughters in uniform and will not send them what they need."

Why do you think the Liberals don't want to have to vote on Tax increases???? So it cant be held against them when us, the taxpayers, revolt and demand answers.

You either have to be accountable for your actions, or have a damn good reason why you didn't act. In Iraq, we either have to fight to win, or tuck tail and come home. If we do the later, how many millions will die, and how long will it take before we have slaughter on our streets???

Americas credibility would be shot once again. We left Viet Nam and in SEA, 2.3 million people are unaccounted for or ended up in mass graves. No one would help us anymore because we could not be trusted or depended on for support.


We cant run a war or allow polls to dictate our policies in the world.

Answer 9

They can't and won't.

Not to mention if it were ever passed (which will not happen), the results would be devastating to our troops. There's been a recent troop surge; think about what cutting funds would do.

No way would the Dems risk even proposing this.

Answer 10

If they cut funding you will be the first one using the soldier for politics.