This has been all the rage on all the radio and TV talk shows for the past month, but what exactly is it?
I really can't get a complete answer on this. I have looked many places and only seen speculation on what would happen. Would this mean no mo money to provide equipment for troops? Would their food and water be depleted? Would they run out of fuel for their vehicles?

How do you define cutting funds for the Iraq war?

Is it constitutional for congress to cut off funding for a war they voted to enter?

Cutting funds for the Iraq war would involve the congress refusing to appropriate the operational money to support it.

It's not unconstitutional for the congress to cut off funding. In fact, it is specifically constitutional.

That's not really the issue. It's a moral and ethical question instead. Should the congress declare unilateral surrender and wave the white flag of defeat and put our nation in a terrible situation, both long and short-term, because they lack the moral courage, the conviction, the backbone, and the political will to prevail in the war that they authorized? Or will they take the emotionally attractive easy way out?

To date the war has been funded by a supplemental budget request (outside regular budget) . This year Bush says he will put it in the regular budget. Regardless where it comes from Congress approves it and if they do not the troops would have to leave since the funds to keep them there (and support the Iraqi gov. and construction etc.) would not be available.


IMO the Dems should put it up for a vote. They want to run and this is the best way to force Bush to pull out and leave the Iraqi government to do it themselves.

Sleeper, you’re right, it’s hard to find information on the exact implications of the Democrats and Republicans planned resolution. Here's some info that might help clear the mud on funding for Bush’s “Operation Surge”:


At least operation “Operation Surge” sounds better than the plan from the nearly past four years: “Operation Winging It”. And I think the intention of this proposal is to build the foundation to start holding the White House more accountable. From the same article as above:




Just so you know LH, both Hagel and Snowe cast Yea votes for the authorization of force in Iraq, so what you’re seeing is a representative democracy in action (and for future reference if you want to play bi-partisan politics with this issue). The elections last fall pretty much stamped the story that “we the people” are fed up with Bush and his lack of Iraq strategy. This is the way it’s supposed to work. At least I thought so.

And LH, I’ve asked this question to you and the rest who supported the invasion and our continued occupation and it still hasn’t been answered. If Iraq is back to pre-invasion status in five-ten-fifteen years (I probably should amend this to five-ten-fifteen months) will it have been worth our efforts?

Because it’s going to happen. Period. And if you believe Iraq will return to anything short of a true democracy, with continued ethnic violence than it makes sense for us to once again dust the mistakes off ourselves and leave now. The Iraqi people have had their chance and they predictably returned to their two thousand year old behavior.

Yes, Hagel and Snowe reflect the lack of moral courage, conviction, and political will that I referred to. As do the majority of democrats.



Well, those sort of hypothetical questions don't really mean much and don't change the fact that we ARE in this war. It doesn't really matter if I "and the rest" supported the invasion. The representatives of the people voted and authorized it. It's done.

All we can do is make the best of a bad situation and prevail in any way that we can.

Harping on the fact that it may have been a mistake SOLVES NOTHING. But, if you can tell me how the defeatism and negative expectations help our country, I'm all ears.

All ears, hardly. Most people talking about wanting to leave Iraq do so not out of political reasons but simply because they view the war as bad for America, not good for it. What do you think would drive such a push to vote the politics that support this war out? Some massive hysteria, its more likely that some massive hysteria is what allowed the bush cooperation to lie to us about needing to invade in teh first place really, though I guess lying to the American public is a good thing?

God help us when we start to run wars by popular opinion. All war is bad for American and everyone else, but this one has rid us of a dangerous nutcase in the ME and helped secure all that OIL we are so addicted to and Congress refuses to do anything about (for 40 years).

Bush didn’t lie he just did not get the WMD but Iraq free of sanctions would have kept them and the capability to make lots more in their arms race with Iran. Now we have only the nuts in Iran to deal with and being next door does not hurt – does it?

Is it really just popular opinion, or is that some new line to be used for the time being?

Personally in my narrow opinion bush has done nothing more then feed to us to failure in an overall unneeded war that has nothing going for it save some bloody stalemate. Yes it has also helped destabilize the middle east. Brutal dictators are plentiful all around the earth, ones I can point out that are overall worse then saddam, we don’t even have a blip on the radar for them. I will also be so happy to point out our divergence from Afghanistan has aided AQ and the Taliban.

Bush didn't "lie to us" about needing to invade in the first place.

Neither did these people.

Democrat quotes on Iraq

We went to war after Bush went to congress for his authorization and received it. That is part of the historical record.

However, lets assume for the sake of argument that the war is "bad for America".

Explain how losing the war, withdrawing in defeat and in shame, is "better" for America. If it's not better, and actually worse, why would you (or anyone else) advocate it?

And while you're at it, explain how future allies of the US would consider our alliance? Would we be a country that could be depended on for the long haul? Or, would we be considered to be soft, weak, and quick to turn tail when relatively minor sacrifices (by historical wartime standards) were endured by our citizens? Explain how this would be "better" for America.

And finally, please explain how our terrorist enemies, the Islamist Jihadist would view our hasty retreat from Iraq. Would they be emboldened to step up attacks against us? Or, would they suddenly be overwhelmed with compassion toward us and just leave us alone? Explain how the reaction of anti-terror groups would be "better" for America.

I await your response.

It's one thing to be against something that's unpleasant, untidy, and an inherently dirty business.

It's another to advocate something that would make the situation worse, not better.

What alliance first of all, and second it does not matter how long we stay if we cant achieve our goals. So with that being said I don’t see this occurring ever until we sent in a troop surge of at least 300-400,000 more boots on the ground. So we can stay, keep the middle east boiling, narrow our resources, punish other things with neglect, and generally pull out ten years down the road having succeeded in basically what will be well over a million dead Iraqi people in a ruined nation. Four years so far, to prove we don’t have control.

Have you looked at what occurred today in Iraq? How many dead and what the insurgency managed to pull off? I just look at the reality on the ground, four years has proved we are not in control, I think if we could hold control four years would have been enough time to show this. I don’t want to have to point it out but its not really a war for Iraq anymore, no sir, we are fighting a war and sending in nearly another 25,000 troops to battle for one city in Iraq, now do the math, I will be waiting.

So overall if you think just having the open sore of Iraq as a permanent fixture in the earths geography that is fine, I don’t however and yes I do advocate change, save most everyone past the presidents company has been stonewalled off and giving no influence on the conflict save to go along with faulty evidence after 9-11 and the hysteria that was and still is. Yes, we need to put the Iraqis on the point, if they don’t want it, it should not be on us to hold that mess together for another decade to only pull out. We need specific and direct means in which to gauge this conflict, not subjective manure so often spewed on this from our representative government.

You're avoiding my questions. If we do what you advocate, and just cut-and-run, how would that be "better for America" than prevailing.

Pointing out problems, either real, hypothetical, or imaginary, does not address the basic choice that we're faced with.

I maintain that cutting and running would make the situation even WORSE for America.

If you think it would make it better, then back it up. If you also think it would be worse, then how could you possibly advocate it?

How do you know staying is for the better?

I mean you cant even answer your own questions, and when I put mine up you say I am just cutting and running. My position is that we wont deploy enough forces to break up what is in my opinion a stalemate in Iraq, so with that in mind how long do you think we will stay with that reality? My position is send in another half million soldiers, or give the Iraqis one more year to pony up, let them know they have one year to work towards what we want from them every day. If you cant reach either then yes, cut and run and deal with the new world.

This is disingenuous on its face. You yourself have provided nothing to "back up" your opinion that leaving Iraq would be 'bad' for the country. Why then should anyone with an opposing opinion have to provide back up?? You've said that "cutting and running" (way to pick up on the conservative buzz words by the way) would be bad because it would embolden the terrorists. But you don't say why. In fact it is impossible to say why definitively, because it is conjecture about the future, which is, in every case I can think of, unknowable.

I say staying is bad, because it emboldens the terrorists. It is bad because it will cause the ice-cream trees in Norway to melt. It is bad because it will make Cookie Monster contract epiliepsy. There. Now, if you think differently, BACK IT UP!!

Well if the terrorists say that Iraq is the front against the US should we believe him? If THEY say that a victory there is most important to them should we believe them? So read below and you can see that the terrorists feel Iraq and Afghanistan are very important to their war with the US (and Israel) and if we leave and they get control of the country please tell me why you feel they would not consider this a major victory and use Iraq as a staging area for more terrorism.

Al-Zawahiri Video on Bush's Iraq Security Plan

My Muslim brothers everywhere: the enemy has admitted before the friend that those who broke the back of the Americans and Crusaders in Afghanistan and Iraq, and defeated the American plot which wanted to swallow the states of the region are the Mujahideen, those who believed in Allah as their Lord, Islam as their religion, and Muhammad - peace be upon him - as their Prophet and Messenger, those who rejected national affiliations, nationalist fanaticism, the Sykes-Picot border, and international law. They, O my Muslim Ummah, are your righteous sons, and the true defenders of your honor, religion, and sanctities. So, O my Muslim Ummah, isn't it time that we reject and disbelieve in narrow patriotism which has torn apart the Ummah just as an international Crusade is being waged against it, which brings together Jews and Crusaders from every corner of the world. Isn't it time we reject the hateful patriotism which makes some regard Muhammad Dahlan and Mahmoud Abbas as their brothers, when both of them know that they are Palestine-selling secular traitors who are hostile to the Shari'ah and loyal to America and Israel. Allah has forbidden us in the Quran to take them or their like as friends and allies. The Truth, Exalted is He, says: 'Yee shall not find any people who believe in Allah and the Lord by loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they be their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their clan.'
At the end of my speech, I remind the Muslim Ummah of the duty towards its sons, the Mujahideen in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Somalia, Algeria, and all lands of Islam. Back them with men, money, opinion, expertise, and prayers. And I mention specifically the two Islamic emirates in Afghanistan and Iraq, for they are waging battle in the two most crucial fields against the Zionist Crusade. The Truth, Exalted is he, says: 'When a chapter comes down, enjoining them to believe in Allah and to fight with His Messenger those with wealth and influence among them ask for you for exemption and say, 'Leave us be with those who sit [at home].' They are happy to be with those [the women] who remain behind. Their hearts are sealed and so they understand not. But the Messenger and those who believe with him fight with their wealth and their persons. For them are [all] good things and it is they who will prosper. Allah has prepared for them gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein. That is the supreme triumph



And we have killed and captured many terrorist killers in Iraq – see below.

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Wh...PageView=Shared
INSECURITY—FOR THE BAD GUYS
Zarqawi isn’t the only top terrorist to be stopped in Iraq recently. On May 31, the Iraqis announced the arrest of a terrorist who claimed to have beheaded hundreds:
The Iraqi government, meanwhile, said its security forces had arrested a key terror suspect, Ahmed Hussein Dabash Samer al-Battawi, who it said had confessed to beheading hundreds of people.
Battawi was arrested by an Iraqi antiterrorist combat unit, which also seized documents, cellphones and computers that contained information on other suspected terrorists and Islamic extremist groups, the prime minister’s office said.

What you have to ask yourselves is just how much money are you as the tax payer prepared to keep tipping into Iraq without achieving a result assuming you ever could achieve a result given that insufficient manpower was put into the task.

I believe Iraq will end up in a full blown Civil War once the US leaves Iraq be that tomorrow or in 10 years time, but what you can be sure there will a steadily number of body bags coming back stateside during that period. The question is that price worth saving Bush's political arse?

We keep hearing Bush and Blair talking now about bringing democracy to Iraq, but what democracy? Islam does not do democracy or abide by the rule of law as you and we know it, so what are our boys and girls laying their lives on the line to achieve.

We have been lied to from the start and the reasons for this venture get revised several times each year, but more and more people keep dieing and those who do not, appear to live in constant fear of their lives.

This sounds like madness. Gi's in Iraq have inadequate or none at all armor for their vehicles. Canvas tarps for side doors. And people speak idlely about funding cuts and what does it really mean? To know, you have to ask the men over in Iraq, the ones facing danger every day.

It's quite clear that you haven't asked the men over there either. Next you're going to tell that the soldiers don't have any body armor right? Debate the argument of the merits and the facts, but please leave the tired 2003 cliche's behind. They are no longer applicable.
No HMMWV goes on patrol or convoy security unless it is an M1114 variant. Not to mention the ever increasing use of the M1117 ASV.

I believe it deals more with cutting the funds that support the Iraqi government. That way, pressure mounts on the government to put their 188,000 troops in harms way and leave the Americans out of target practice pieces for every group in that country now. THAT I think makes logical sense.

As to not having the adequate protective gear and armored vehicles, this is something the republican congress did and Bush never called for it. Have you forgotten that soldier's question to Rumsfeld about when those vehicles would be supplied?

How do you define cutting funds for the Iraq war?
There are only two definitions that mean anything. 1) Cutting allocated funds that have not been yet spent, which equates degrading the military's capability of defending itself in Iraq, or 2) stopping future budget expenditures which may force the US to pull forces out of Iraq sometime in the future.
If the effort is directed towards option number two, more power to the congressmen, go for what you know. If the effort is directed towards option number one, then shame on them.
So far, I'm unsure of which option the Democratic controlled congress will engage in:


Link


What's your point? The soldiers question may have been valid then, but certainly isn't now. Out of date cliches simply can't be logically used to debate current arguments.

All right, DTOM. If we are invalidating antiquated arguments, then let's invalidate a few others:
1. Imminent threat
2. Safe harbor to terrorists
3. Establishing democracy makes us safer
4. Oh, yeah, WMD



I agree with this delineation. I suspect Congress would pursue some form of (2). However, if the game is to be played out in the next 6 months (as has been suggested), then perhaps Congress can just make noises but really just wait it out.

You said most people wan to leave Iraq. This is what I call popular opinion – and I don’t see how running a war based on it makes sense.




Personally I would have waited for the UN to perhaps do their job with Saddam but that is water over the dam as they say. We are there now and so are our worst enemies – AND it is the middle of ½ the worlds oil on which the fate of our 4 trillion dollar economy rests. Leaving now is not an option unless we can live with the dire consequences of having Iran and Syria control the region.

And please explain what we would have done differently in Afghanistan if we were not in Iraq? IMO not a thing.

-So we keep the war because we dont want oil to fall into the wrong hands.
-Its the fault of the U.N because they did not attack with a force they dont have.
-Pulling resources from afghanistan has done nothing to aid AQ and the taliban.

Personally again has I have said over and over maybe we should just kick the oil habit and spread such technology, though I know this wont happen, not because we cant simply because it wont happen. SO then our dependence on oil or the worlds for that matter is drawing such conflict in your opinion and then I would ask is it worth it for a resource which has a finite lifespan that one day we will have to develop away from anyways.

The U.N did not support war in Iraq because we could not prove our case with the faulty information that was used along with 9-11 to sell it to the public of our nation.

I would say with ease another 50,000 troops alone put in Afghanistan would help greatly and it would be my guess that we would already pretty much be don’t in Afghanistan if we used the resources we put in Iraq into Afghanistan. We cant do anything with Pakistan and what AQ and the Taliban happen to be doing there because we don’t have a force or money to make any operation there a reality with save bombs possibly. So this allows AQ and the Taliban to live on and commit more actions and of course spread out. Remember for what its worth it was such people that did 9-11, not Iraq.

We “keep” the war because the area is vital to our interests and if we left now would fall into the hands of Ian/Syria and the terrorists. And YES we are totally depenndandt on oil and that will not change soon. And we did not “pull from Afghanistan” – we are still ther and so is NOTO. We pay big BILLIONS for NATO and its about time they did something for the US.





The UN did not support or not support – they did what they do best – NOTHING. Iraq had been in violation of every single UN sanction since 1991 and not once did the “UN” security Council think of using force. So why would Iraq ever comply?? I would have waited longer but IMO the UN would never have voted to use force in Iraq.

Where do you get the idea 50,000 more in Afghanistan would make a digfference, over and above our troops and NATO?? Want to cite something???

How about bush attempting to have our allies send more troops to Afghanistan, that addition of at least one more combat brigade there also. I would say these point would not occur if we did not want more troops there. Again, bash the U.N for what it is at least. Can the U.N order a nation to war??? Because you obliviously think it holds such an ability, though I imagine you would be adamant as to never support giving the U.N such ability but then you probably also want to be able to trash on it for not having such, is this what I am to understand?

We don’t have enough forces to contend with both fronts adequately, or I think we may not be asking for more help. I don’t think we will get such because then nations would be indirectly supporting our Iraq camping something I would say a majority of the world is against but I don’t know of any direct polls to show this, though I would say the vote of the public should register but representative government is not much to consider when you are the "decider" and all.

You lost me. Certainly the UN Security Council could have voted for military action in Iraq as we requested. If fact you would have thought that this would have happened in 1998 when Saddam tossed out the UN inspectors. But we know that the UN is very poor at dealing with this type of situation – as in Bosnia. So was it ok for Clinton to go into the Bosnian conflict with no UN sanction? How about Iraq in 1998.

We don’t ask our fiends for more troops because we need to act quickly and integrating them would take too long. We have the troops and we are sending them and the 250 bad guys killed yesterday tell me it is starting top work. Al Sader is back in the government and militia forces have been disbanded or are being crushed.

The consequences of leaving or ‘redeploying” to punish or ally are too great




No Congress can cut funds tomorrow and the troops would have to start coming home soon. The truth is that this is what the left wing of the party wants (the dems) and the reality is they got control but not agreement and could never force the more conservative Dems to go along – much to the chagrin of Kennedy and Pelosi. So instead we have meaningless ‘resolutions” - for show.