seriously, they want you to believe that doing so will hurt on troops. In fact with no additional funding any commanding officer will not put his troops in undue harm's way. meaning would the military really send our troops into battle with no ammo? of course not, so all this talk about being unabled to withhold funding is all BS from both parties, right?
2007-11-12 14:02:54 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
with lack of funding the military will be forced to downsize the troop numbers & scale back.
2007-11-12 14:04:14 · update #1
They know that that would create a huge backlash for them. They know that the majority of Americans would hold them politically responsible. And most important, if the dems vote to defund the war, they would be saddled with the fact that they lost the war, besides, if they defund the war, they lose the issue of the war in the elections.
2007-11-12 14:13:42 · answer #1 · answered by madd texan 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't forget , military people and their dependents also vote.
If anyone did anything which might be taken as not caring for the welfare of the troops, he would be a dead duck politically.
You arrgument about not sending troops into battle without ammo is a good one, but what do you with the troops when they're hungry and there's nothing to feed them with?? The same checkbook pays for bread as well as bullets.
2007-11-12 14:10:30 · answer #2 · answered by Barry auh2o 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
(A) They don't want to stop it as much as they like having the albatross of this failed war hung around the necks of the Republicans who still stubbornly support it.
(B) They lack the 'nads to take the childish name-calling that would follow from the right.
(C) Both
In any case, their "concern" for our troops looks pretty hollow and their tears are of the crocodile variety.
As far as the nonsense about them not having food or supplies, it's just that. They have enough funding to last for months, without a single additional dollar appropriated. If they know there's no more forthcoming, they have more than enough funds for an orderly withdrawal over that period of months, with no more lacking for the troops than what has been over the past 4 years.
If they were left there without changing the mission, knowing full well there was no more funding to continue the war, then that would be the choice of Bush and company, entirely.
2007-11-12 14:16:27 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
watch the dem's debates and keep track of the number of times you here this administration or george bush. the only thing they say is a new direction, but they never say anything about the new direction. if the war ended today the dem's would be in trouble. they sound like they are running against bush who is done. let here the new plan not what we need to do but how we are going to get it done. if they can't get it done in the time they have been in congress(they make the laws) what makes people think they can get it done outside congress. this go for both dem's and rep. if you want to change the government vote every incumbant legislator out every election for the next 3 elections and you will have a new congress with no power pocket . i have not idea who i will vote for for pres. but i am going to vote for the other guy for congress.
2007-11-12 14:25:15 · answer #4 · answered by Dare Man 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dennis Kucinich has been saying this for a VERY long time, but the fearful Dem leadership is afraid of looking "unpatriotic". Puh-leeeeze!
I guess they figure the coming election is more important than ending a fiasco created by the opposition crazies.
2007-11-12 15:15:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the reason so many antiwar people are upset with Congress. They were voted in to pull the funding for the war, forcing the President to bring the troops home since he would not be able to provide for their needs, but Congress refuses to do so.
2007-11-12 14:12:16 · answer #6 · answered by Slimsmom 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
not funding for the military - stop funding for the war in iraq only.
i would fully support such a move.
2007-11-12 14:21:29 · answer #7 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In politics, it's often like chess.
You have to study the board before you leap.
The democrats are not stupid (many of them).
The war is.
2007-11-12 14:38:01 · answer #8 · answered by roostershine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cause they know that it would be irresponsible and they would get blamed for it.
2007-11-12 14:06:18 · answer #9 · answered by Neal 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
http://bconservativesunitedb.blogspot.com/
2007-11-12 14:33:34 · answer #10 · answered by Jeremiah Johnson 7 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋