If the Democrats don't supply funding for the war..?

Question

you guys understand that it's not going to effect the troops right?

the RIGHTIES are saying that the lefties are keeping money from the troops.

First off... any lack of funding will come from the hands of Bush's VETO stamp...
Secondly... any lack of funding is just going to squash the no-bid contracts awarded to bush friends, and it will cut down on the no-bid security forces.

-we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars which have already been approved, but not yet used...

the money we've already approved should be plenty to operate for a long time.

if Bush burns through his approved funds that's not anyone's fault but his.

the money he's asking for now is just to throw on the pile. if he vetoes it, that's his fault.

Answer 1

Agreed 200%!

Exactly! It would be BUSH doing this. The fees are already put into the national budget for the Army. I should know, I am a Veteran from the Army, and I keep very close tabs on this kind of stuff.

Sorry, but it is time that Haliburton stopped charging $100 a bag for laundry and $100 a CASE of Coke over there! (Oh, they make the Coke right there in Iraq, so it isn't for transportation costs) THIS comes directly from the soldiers who are over there!

Answer 2

I both understand, and agree, but don't be suprised if Bush does indeed cut funding to the troops, before he cuts the no-bid contracts, and that another media campaign is launched to blame the democrats for endangering the troops, and the Democrats crumble and end up giving Bush all he asked for (again)

Answer 3

The problem is that the Democrats have to get their PR forces in gear and let people know the actual facts. The Republicans spin like tops and lead much of the public to believe that the Democrats are hurting the troops. The Democrats have to explain clearly, and somewhat simply, what they are doing and what Bush is doing.

Answer 4

for the duration of the 70's whilst gasoline costs first went for the duration of the ceiling, there grew to become into an attempt to strengthen suggestions to petroleum. it relatively is whilst Mobil One man made Motor Oil grew to become into stepped forward. great Oil then reminded Ronald Reagan to no longer replace their severe earnings products with suggestions and he positioned the shape of petroleum suggestions to sleep. think of our shrunken dependency on distant places oil if we were engaged on petroleum replace for 4 a protracted time. good now Bush needs a 20 % progression in motor vehicle gasoline financial device interior of two a protracted time. Scientists and Engineers say that it must be performed in 5 years yet Bush does not choose to interfere with great Oil advertising as lots. If we had an selection to petroleum like we'd desire to constantly have had by making use of now, we does no longer be battling a conflict simply by fact of it.

Answer 5

tsk, tsk... Have you considered the military base closings that may be result? Whether a person agrees w/ Bush or Congress, or even believe in money going towards the military, no one can truthfully deny the economic impact that the military and its personnel has on communities across the nation. Furthermore, what about the direct/indirect costs of the war? What about the soldiers'/veterans' benefits?

Hey, Democrats has been making the critical mistake of believing that when they assume 'control' of Congress that they received a mandate from the people. It was not a vote for them but a vote against the Republicans. There is a difference.

They seem to be waging an election campaign against a president that cannot run for re-election (trying to cut any coat tails of influence he may have w/ republican contenders as well) instead of doing their job of governing in the best interest of the people.

Answer 6

Where do you get this baloney?

Look back. The withdrawal of US troops from Viet Nam took place in 1972. It was a victory. The south was preserved and the Chinese and Russians withdrew support from the north. Prisoners were released. It was over. The Democrats withdrew financial support for South Vietnam in 1975. Within moments, Russia and China arranged for the renewal of finance to the north. Saigon fell not long after. Every branch of the US military stopped reaching it's recruiting goals.

Do you think Iraq won't fall? Do you really think this won't have long term repercussions on the US military and it's ability to function on the world stage?
Do you really think we wouldn't have to go back in some capacity at twice the price?

Answer 7

But it's easy enough to keep the money going to the contracts, keep it secret, and then when troops run low on supplies, blame it on the Democrats for not funding them enough.

Thing is, the bill has to get through the Senate first, which probably won't happen if the Dems keep writing the same thing over and over again.

Answer 8

Playing politics with funding hurts the troops! It hurts moral to see that politicians in your country don't support you. You can say you support the troops but not the war but we all know that's just a line of BS. I'm sick of ignorant people talking about no bid contracting. KBR is the only company that does what they do in the world. There is no other contractor that could handle the logistical side of such a large scale operation. We handed off our operations to them in OIF 1 and they were doing a good job. From what I've heard from friends they have still been doing so. It's easy to criticize when you don't understand what you are talking about.

Answer 9

Out of all of your statement one thing you said is true, the President will not allow the democrats the opportunity to withhold funding, he will move money from some other source and hopefully it will be the money earmarked to operate the congress and pay their salaries.

Answer 10

Yup he would just have to give up his dreams of empire. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!