A Shameful Strategy
Well, the Democrats are pretty open about what some of them are going to try to do to force the US to cut and run out of Iraq. Cut off funds for the war. If they win control of the house, some members of the Congress fully intend to try to make the war impossible to fight by cutting off money. In the worst example of double-speak yet, they say they won't cut off funds for the troops. Just for the war. You try and figure that one out.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction.
“I can’t stop this war,” a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.
But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?”
Rangel’s views on funding the war are shared by many of his colleagues – especially within the 73-member Out of Iraq Caucus.
Some Democratic legislators want to halt funding for the war immediately, while others say they would allocate money for activities such as reconstruction, setting up international security forces, and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
“Personally, I wouldn’t spend another dime [on the war,]” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
Woolsey is among the Democrats in Congress who are hoping to control the power of the purse in 2007 to force an end to the war. Woolsey and some of her colleagues note that Congress helped force the end of Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it.
They care not one whit how deadly a precipitous pullout will be for the entire United States. Some of them cannot figure out why the nation keeps considering them weak on security. The complete lack of logic here is astonishing.
Battling the White House on the war would be challenging, Democrats say, but they would be emboldened by the election results and Bush’s standing as a lame-duck president with low approval ratings.
Abercrombie stressed that Democrats are not going to sever funding for the troops. Cutting off funding is “easy to say and another thing to do,” according to Abercrombie.
What’s more like likely, he said, is to fund the conflict in a way that will end the war by reallocating money to new initiatives.
“We’re going to continue to give the troops everything they need,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
A House Democratic leadership aide said, “The bottom line is that should Democrats regain the House, Democrats will leave no soldier left behind in Iraq. As long as there’s soldiers in the battlefield, funding will continue.”
Yeah. Great idea. I'm sure my son and his fellow soldiers are highly comforted by words like this. We're going to cut off funds, but magically the soldiers won't be affected by that. This is shameful and shows the worst America has to offer.
They care not one whit how deadly a precipitous pullout will be for the entire United States. Some of them cannot figure out why the nation keeps considering them weak on security. The complete lack of logic here is astonishing.
Battling the White House on the war would be challenging, Democrats say, but they would be emboldened by the election results and Bush’s standing as a lame-duck president with low approval ratings.
Abercrombie stressed that Democrats are not going to sever funding for the troops. Cutting off funding is “easy to say and another thing to do,” according to Abercrombie.
What’s more like likely, he said, is to fund the conflict in a way that will end the war by reallocating money to new initiatives.
“We’re going to continue to give the troops everything they need,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
A House Democratic leadership aide said, “The bottom line is that should Democrats regain the House, Democrats will leave no soldier left behind in Iraq. As long as there’s soldiers in the battlefield, funding will continue.”
Yeah. Great idea. I'm sure my son and his fellow soldiers are highly comforted by words like this. We're going to cut off funds, but magically the soldiers won't be affected by that. This is shameful and shows the worst America has to offer.
By Cousin Dave, Tuesday, 26 September , 2006 @ 2:41 pm
So here’s how that would come out: They won’t cut payroll, because to Dems, the military is a “jobs” program. What will happen is that they will cut materiel, weapons procurements, and research. They will re-create Jimmy Carter’s hollow army, where troops couldn’t train because they had no bullets for their guns, couldn’t deploy because they had no rations, and had to mend holes in their uniforms themselves because there was no money for replacements. You’d have a whole bunch of soldiers sitting around with nothing to do. Morale would drop, leading to a plunge in recruitments and reductions in troop strength. And then AQ would attack… and Dems would reinstate the draft… and then start referring to Bush as “the president who reinstated the draft”!
By Neit, Tuesday, 26 September , 2006 @ 3:46 pm
‘I can’t stop this war,’ but I can arrange a coup in the US military against the Pentagon(budget).
By syn, Tuesday, 26 September , 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Democrats want to bring the war home to American soil so they can destroy it once and for all in order to have a campaign slogan “We finally got Bush”.
I admit I’m angry right now.
What Woosley really wants is to spend government money on bogus research for meaningless embryonic stem cell cure-all so that Democrats can have a press conference declaring themselves greater than God because they are close to raising peoples from hopeless despair.
And more books, lots and lots of books selected by the ultimate intellectual who believes only authors such as Rachel Carsen, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and the like should be the only reading material read by all the hopelessly desperate underlings.
Seriously, if Democrats want to stop the war then they might try returning to their liberal roots and ‘bare any burden, pay any price’ by standing up to tyranny and terror instead of shrinking in appeasement.
By syn, Tuesday, 26 September , 2006 @ 4:03 pm
I grew up as a teenager during the slum decade of the 70’s and I am not going back. Ever.