House Democrat Plan: Slowly choke off funding for Iraq

madanthonywayne

madanthonywayne

Morning in America
Registered Senior Member
House Democrats have crafted a weasle plan to slowly choke off funding for the Iraq war through the "readiness" strategy. They plan to tack on regulations regarding funding for any new troops sent to Iraq to make it impossible for sufficient troops to be found and funded to continue the war.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.

The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Murtha's proposal, which has been kept under tight wraps, is likely to pass the House next month or in early April as part of the supplemental spending bill, Democratic insiders said, if the language remains tightly focused and does not threaten funding levels for combat forces already in the field. The battle will then shift to the Senate. Anti-war groups like Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents like Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnestoa, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition.

Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war, a direct challenge to conservative incumbents who are attempting to straddle the political line between their pro- and anti-war constituents.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html
Click to expand...
It's tough to win a war when you have Democrats stabbing you in the back.
 
Nickelodeon, yes with ever word they spoke, and every amendment and investigation they brought forward to destroy the present administration.
 
What happened to all the "funding" given before?

Its not gone for armor for soldiers, nor for veterans and the situation in Iraq does not seem to have improved, so what were the advantages of the "funds" given?
 
Actually, SamCDKey, a lot of the money was given to soldier armour, repair of vehicles, soldier's pay, food, Iraqi food and care, medical expenses, munitions...

Basically, you know, the costs of war.
 
It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat.
Click to expand...
Damn them Democrats for making sure the troops are supported! Republicans treat them like cannon fodder, sacrificing them for political reasons. There is no other way to end this war, (other than impeachment) which is why all those Democrats got elected, remember?
 
spidergoat said:
Damn them Democrats for making sure the troops are supported! Republicans treat them like cannon fodder, sacrificing them for political reasons. There is no other way to end this war, (other than impeachment) which is why all those Democrats got elected, remember?
Click to expand...
Bull. The Democrats have no interest in supporting the troops. Quite the contrary. These "readiness" rules they want are designed solely to decrease the number of troops available to send to Iraq.

I do eye exams on soldiers almost every day, and they are pissed at the Democrats. They understand who really supports them and who is sticking a knife in their backs.
 
spidergoat, no that isn't why they got elected, they got elected to do the peoples business, and if they don't get going and do the peoples business thing will change with the next election, the job of the government first is to protect the people, and I don't see anything that the democrats are doing to do so, I am now waiting for the next big boom, or maybe the hiss of escaping biological?
 
madanthonywayne said:
Bull. The Democrats have no interest in supporting the troops. Quite the contrary. These "readiness" rules they want are designed solely to decrease the number of troops available to send to Iraq.

I do eye exams on soldiers almost every day, and they are pissed at the Democrats. They understand who really supports them and who is sticking a knife in their backs.
Click to expand...
The knife is going into the backs of the American people and the Iraqi people. Bush's mafia put those troops in this situation, knifing them in the back, by sending them in under equipped and on phony intelligence. Until you chickenhawks figure out a way to pay for your wars don't dare condemn those that demand accountability for the first trillion dollars shit down the drain. Cut The Funding and use the money in America, on American soil. You guys lusting for more money for more time in the civil war should pay triple in taxes to pay for your disaster.
 
madanthonywayne said:
House Democrats have crafted a weasle plan to slowly choke off funding for the Iraq war through the "readiness" strategy. They plan to tack on regulations regarding funding for any new troops sent to Iraq to make it impossible for sufficient troops to be found and funded to continue the war.

It's tough to win a war when you have Democrats stabbing you in the back.
Click to expand...
Ha! Too bad for you. The American people wanted the Dems to gain control over your party's failed strategies in the Bush wars. It was all in your party's hands, since 2000! And STILL you failed. The People wanted change, you'll need to shed your disdain for democracy. Your support for King George is revealing indeed.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
spidergoat, no that isn't why they got elected, they got elected to do the peoples business, and if they don't get going and do the peoples business thing will change with the next election, the job of the government first is to protect the people, and I don't see anything that the democrats are doing to do so, I am now waiting for the next big boom, or maybe the hiss of escaping biological?
Click to expand...

The people business, which in this case means ending our involvement in Iraq's civil war, providing oversight on Bush's fascistic power grabs and war profiteering, AND dealing with domestic issues.

Who anthraxed senate Democrats? I would like to know.
 
Genji said:
You guys lusting for more money for more time in the civil war should pay triple in taxes to pay for your disaster.
Click to expand...
Trust me on this one, I pay plenty in taxes. And I have to pay quarterly, which means I have to write checks to the government rather than have it taken out before I ever see it.
 
Genji said:
The knife is going into the backs of the American people and the Iraqi people. Bush's mafia put those troops in this situation, knifing them in the back, by sending them in under equipped and on phony intelligence. Until you chickenhawks figure out a way to pay for your wars don't dare condemn those that demand accountability for the first trillion dollars shit down the drain. Cut The Funding and use the money in America, on American soil. You guys lusting for more money for more time in the civil war should pay triple in taxes to pay for your disaster.
Click to expand...



Oh no no. The Knife is most certainly going into the tax payers backs but the wielder stabs to the left. The bills calling for kind treatment of noted terrorists halts the stream of information that could have been vital in the war. Left wing media blasts our troops nightly and then their asses lay down to sleep, being kept safe by the very fucking people they rip to shreds every night.

My cousin just got back from his second tour in Afghanistan and, as anthonywayne said, troops hate democrats for doing everything possible to halt any progress.
 
I now agree that Iraq has now become Vietnam all over again, the democrats cutting funds for the troops, and wanting to pull out, afraid of their own shadow, they promised in Vietnam that the killing would stop if only we pulled out of Vietnam, but did it? ask 3,000,000 Cambodian, 1,670,00 Vietnamese, 107,000 Lao/ Humong, the killing didn't stop because we left, and the same thing is going to happen if the democrats force a pull out in Iraq.
 
Redefine91 said:
My cousin just got back from his second tour in Afghanistan and, as anthonywayne said, troops hate democrats for doing everything possible to halt any progress.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Democrats aren't fooling anyone with this crap and it will come back to bite them on the ass. One way or the other.
 
spidergoat said:
Damn them Democrats for making sure the troops are supported! Republicans treat them like cannon fodder, sacrificing them for political reasons. There is no other way to end this war, (other than impeachment) which is why all those Democrats got elected, remember?
Click to expand...
Damn them Democrats who can't support the troops because so very few Democrats are actually in the trenches beside, and watching the back of, their mostly Republican fellow combat troops.

Democrats' "Support" sounds an awful lot like Democrats' "is" to the troops --as substantial as wet toilet paper.
 
Genji said:
The knife is going into the backs of the American people and the Iraqi people. Bush's mafia put those troops in this situation, knifing them in the back, by sending them in under equipped and on phony intelligence. Until you chickenhawks figure out a way to pay for your wars don't dare condemn those that demand accountability for the first trillion dollars shit down the drain. Cut The Funding and use the money in America, on American soil. You guys lusting for more money for more time in the civil war should pay triple in taxes to pay for your disaster.
Click to expand...
I dare you to walk into a bar near any U.S. Army or Marine base and say the same things to the "troops".

Go ahead, chickenschmuck. Support your troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top