Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?

[Cruentus]

O.K.; here is what I am talking about!!!!

I just watched Real Time with Bill Mahr. Keep in mind, I am not bi-partisan, and I listen, read, and watch a variety of different media to get different views.

They had rep. Rahm Emanuel from Ill., and the Mahr asked the question of why doesn't Congress simply vote to stop funding to the war in Iraq. And Emanuel made the exact point that I have been making.

To paraphrase, he said, "I have constituents who have kids who are in Iraq. I can't vote to not send them the best equipment that money can buy. I can't vote to send them with HMMWV's without enough armor, or without the right body armor or protection. That's going to endanger them even more, and that is the wrong way to try to end it."

Sure enough, Mahr and the other guests jumped up his *** with ye ol' mantra, "Support the Troops, Bring em home, dur, dur, dur.." The crowd was hollering and everything. As if they didn't propose bills to do just that!

These deuch-hats obviously don't give a crap, in my opinion. I view this attitude as wanting to "win" at all cost, even if it results in soldiers being in harms way without proper protection and equipment. See, and I am of the opinion that individuals like that have no business saying that they "support our troops," when they don't really.

This obviously pisses me off, but Democrates need to look at this as a major reason why they can't seem to get people elected. How can a Democrate get elected when their own supporting base and media sources are so quick to throw their asses under the bus just cause things aren't going their way? Here is a Congressman who is making the right decision to protect our soldiers, even if it means funding a war that he doesn't agree with, yet he catches hell for it. And that is Bullcrap, in my opinion. His own voting base should be friggin' praising him and others who are willing to set aside personal agenda to do the right thing, but they don't. Hell, I don't even like Emanuel's views on a lot of things, but I am willing to give credit where it's due.

And that is the kind of crap I'm talking about in this thread...

C.

 

[Makalakumu]

The congress was granted the constitutional ability to cut funding for unpopular wars by our founding fathers. They viewed the "power of the purse" as being a check on the executive branches ability to wage war. With the thought being that a concientious executive would pull our troops out of harms way if they didn't have the funding to continue with whatever policy decision was made.

If congress decided to cut funding for the war, it would be entirely in their right to do so. The president should respond as constitutionally mandated. There is an assumed moral imperitive to remove our troops from harms way if this happens.

Instead, we get spin. Instead, we get arguments that basically undermine the very methodology the constitution set in motion.

What else can you expect from a president who says "the constitution is just a god damned peice of paper."

If congress does cut funding for the war and the commander in cheif keeps the troops there without adequate funding, then it is entirely the presidents fault for ignoring constitutional checks on his power.

 

[Mr. E]

The congress was granted the constitutional ability to cut funding for unpopular wars by our founding fathers.

This is not about cutting off funding. This is about decreasing funding.

On one hand, you have people say that the president does not care about the troops so something has to be done to bring them home.

But by reducing the amount of funding they expect this same president to cut back on the number of troops so as to not put them in harms way without sufficient material. In other words, they expect him to do the right thing for the troops while thier reasoning for this type of thing is that he is not.

As I said before, soldiers from the top to the bottom are used to doing the job with whatever resources they have. If congress cuts funding 20 percent with the stated reason that 20 percent of the troops will come home, then all the military will do is sut back on all the things Cruentus talked about while keeping the troops there to complete the mission. Ask anyone who has served as an NCO or higher and they will tell you that the idea of refusing to do something because you don't have the best equipment, etc is just not part of the thinking process.

But this might help bring the troops home like some want. If these troops with their reduced ability to fight due to lack of materials are killed off in greater numbers, then maybe there will be calls for a new president and to yank all the troops home. That would get the troops home, as some want more than anything else. But it would be at the cost of more dead US soldiers- which moderate voters really would not support if they thought about it.

 

[michaeledward]

There are politicians serving our nation, who I believe are courageous in their demonstration to end the occupation of Iraq.

While we weren't paying attention, the Congress authorized / sort of / an additional 70 billion dollars for the Iraqi occupation. This matches up with SecDef Gates recent 'updated' request for 190 billion dollars to run the Iraq war this fiscal year.

One Senator voted against these increased funds. Mr. Feingold.

Interstingly, five senators did not record a roll. Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, McCain, and Brownback were absent. I wonder if they have something in common.

On the other side of the Capitol, 14 Congressmen voted no to these additional funds.

The "no" votes in the House, all cast by anti-war members, came from one Republican, Ron Paul of Texas, and 13 Democrats: Oregon's Earl Blumenauer, Missouri's William Clay, Minnesota's Keith Ellison, California's Bob Filner, Massachusetts' Barney Frank, New York's Maurice Hinchey, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, Washington's Jim McDermott, New Jersey's Donald Payne, California's Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey

In my opinion, the occupation is illegal, and unethical, and counter to America's greatest traditions. (Especially in light of the recent news that President Hussien was willing to exile himself to stop the invasion ~ a position refused by President Bush).

However, Cruentus' position is that the actions of these Representatives refute any claims that they support the troops in military. Now that we have names to go with this position. What is the appropriate response to these representatives?


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=237751

 

[Makalakumu]

This is not about cutting off funding. This is about decreasing funding.

On one hand, you have people say that the president does not care about the troops so something has to be done to bring them home.

But by reducing the amount of funding they expect this same president to cut back on the number of troops so as to not put them in harms way without sufficient material. In other words, they expect him to do the right thing for the troops while thier reasoning for this type of thing is that he is not.

As I said before, soldiers from the top to the bottom are used to doing the job with whatever resources they have. If congress cuts funding 20 percent with the stated reason that 20 percent of the troops will come home, then all the military will do is sut back on all the things Cruentus talked about while keeping the troops there to complete the mission. Ask anyone who has served as an NCO or higher and they will tell you that the idea of refusing to do something because you don't have the best equipment, etc is just not part of the thinking process.

But this might help bring the troops home like some want. If these troops with their reduced ability to fight due to lack of materials are killed off in greater numbers, then maybe there will be calls for a new president and to yank all the troops home. That would get the troops home, as some want more than anything else. But it would be at the cost of more dead US soldiers- which moderate voters really would not support if they thought about it.

I agree with you here. Reducing funding is shortsighted and dangerous to the troops. If people really oppose the war, they need to grow a pair and pull the plug. One senator and 14 representatives is hardly opposition.

I feel that congress should exercise is constitutionally mandated ability in this case.

 

[Cruentus]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=237751

Right; and based on that article, the dems base supporting media once again would rather see funding not get passed, regardless of cost to our troops, in order to "win" the argument. And that, I think, is BS.

Like it or not, it costs at least 120 bil over the general fund yearly to provide our troops with what they need. That means that special funding will need to get passed yearly to keep our troops protected while they are overseas fighting.

We need to bring them home before we cut that funding, not the other way around...

 

[michaeledward]

Again, if the Congress cut the funds, from the requested 190 billion dollars for the year, to zero. The Department of Defense does have the contingency plans to re-allocate money from State-side operations in order to continue to provide the financial resources to keep the troops safe. In fact, in the most recent Congressional appropriations bill, all members of Congress (Democratic and Republican) made certain that the language was specifically included; the DOD can re-allocate money as needed.

So, if Congress did cut funding, the Executive Branch of government would be able to re-allocate funds to ensure the soldiers protection while they were withdrawn from the combat zone. The executive and DOD could choose which projects to stop funding for the timely withdrawl from combat activities.

I think for the sake of the sound-bite, the language has become a sort of 'short hand', accepted by all parties involved. Cutting the funds for Iraq becomes the mechanism by which Congress 'un-declares' war.




With what you are proposing, Cruentus, what controls are in place to check a president, hell bent on a war, of which the citizenry has grown tired?



It begins to appear to me that the lessons of Vietnam were not learned. What used to be talked about, was that you can't go to war without the support of the American people. President Bush has lost that support. It is a lesson, unlearned, I guess.

 

[Makalakumu]

We need to bring them home before we cut that funding, not the other way around...

But that isn't how the Constitution works. The decision to bring the troops home is the commander in cheifs. The only power the congress has is the power of the purse when it comes to war (other then declaring war and that is another discussion entirely).

In essence, you are arguing against the very highest mandate in this country.

And this isn't just an appeal to authority. Think about it. There is wisdom in what the Contitution says. Cutting the funding is a check on the President's power. If Congress does it, he MUST bring them home. And if funding is cut, it's not like the troops are suddenly going to run out of bullets. This current bill is about spending in the future. Right now, the Pentagon still has billions and billions of dollars. If the money stream gets cut off, they have more then enough to bring everyone home safely.

The bottom line is that cutting funding is not going to be the disaster that is propagandized. This little drama is exactly what should happen in our Constitutional Republic.

 

[Marginal]

Why are the troops still fighting with broken gear, and no bullets while they're also no longer being paid? Is Bush gonna buy lottery tickets that'll award an annuity that will only allow the troops to be paid, but not equipped or what?

You pull funding for the war, the deployment ends. That's the understanding informing the cut funding concept. They don't just leave the troops over there to fight on regardless.

Either side of the issue, cutting funding's not likely to happen. Bush will simply veto any such measures that come across his desk, and there aren't the votes to override it. The measure would be political poision, and it's doomed regardless.

 

[Karatedrifter7]

Well I think that if we keep up the war and "say stay the course" all the time we add to the dead, wounded, and disenfranchised young americans coming home. We should have had a plan to begin with. Supporting the troops isint about sticking a select 0verextended to do all the work . While another group of people ride around towns in America, with "Support our troops stickers" on theyre pick-ups.
In other words time to bring em home. Thats supporting the troops. Bring them out of harms way.
Nobody is advocating sticking soldiers out there without weapons. Thats the big lie that conservatives want to promote so that they can continue to get us to pay for
the lemon they bought with Iraq.
Difference between Vietnam,and Iraq for Bush. Bush had a plan for Vietnam!

 

[Big Don]

Well I think that if we keep up the war and "say stay the course" all the time we add to the dead, wounded, and disenfranchised young americans coming home.

Disenfranchised by those that support them and their mission? Or Disenfranchised by those who say they support the troops, while calling them murderers?

We should have had a plan to begin with.

Winning is and always has been the plan. Part of that is staying to the end.

Supporting the troops isint about sticking a select 0verextended to do all the work . While another group of people ride around towns in America, with "Support our troops stickers" on theyre pick-ups.
In other words time to bring em home. Thats supporting the troops. Bring them out of harms way.

How did pulling out of Vietnam work out for the Vietnamese people? Not so well...

Nobody is advocating sticking soldiers out there without weapons. Thats the big lie that conservatives want to promote so that they can continue to get us to pay for the lemon they bought with Iraq.

That is the big lie conservatives never stated. What conservatives actually have said, it that getting the job done will take YEARS and Money.

Difference between Vietnam,and Iraq for Bush. Bush had a plan for Vietnam!

Yeah, Bush did have a plan for Vietnam, volunteering.The standard rap against Bush is that he was ducking combat by joining the Guard. Actually, the Texas Air Guard had a program called Palace Alert that allowed pilots to volunteer for flight time in Vietnam. Three of Bush's fellow pilots—Udell, Woodfin and Fred Bradley—recalled to NEWSWEEK that Bush inquired with the base commander about signing up for Palace Alert. He was told no; he had too few flying hours at the time and his plane, the F-102, was by then deemed obsolete for air combat.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271922/

 

[Gordon Nore]

Disenfranchised by those that support them and their mission? Or Disenfranchised by those who say they support the troops, while calling them murderers?

No doubt, there are those Americans and others who oppose the war and have chosen to call US personnel, "murderers." I don't think that has been the tenor of this thread among those who decry the invasion of Iraq. To edit the title of this thread a bit, Can one say, "Our troops are murderers," and still want them home safe and sound?

That is the big lie conservatives never stated. What conservatives actually have said, it that getting the job done will take YEARS and Money.

Anybody who thought seriously about this conflict before it began should have realized that it would take years and money, whether they were in favour of it or not. To that extent, I agree with you.

Personally, I believe that a lot of people wanted terrorists punished so badly, they would follow their President into the wrong country, all the while believing everything he said. At some point, a lot of Americans got fed up with this war and with the inconsistent messages coming out of the Oval Office and wanted out of it. The whole thing should have unraveled here...

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

It took another four years of Iraq getting neither secured nor reconstructed before a lot of American people got up and said, "Enough." That doesn't make them traitors or troop haters. It means they think their President has done a terrible job. Problem is, Congress is not listening either.

 

[Marginal]

Winning is and always has been the plan. Part of that is staying to the end.

Yes, that's been the oft quoted strategy. The troops would have been better served if the administration had payed more than lip service to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, honoring international treaties etc however.

 

[Big Don]

Yes, that's been the oft quoted strategy. The troops would have been better served if the administration had payed more than lip service to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, honoring international treaties etc however.

Of course Iraq would have been better served had Hussein honored international borders...
Who do you think is paying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure? In less than four years after bombing the hell out of them, the US government assisted by the EVIL Halliburton has Iraqi oil pumping again. Electricity and water service in most areas are coming online. In less than four years. How much infrastructure has the palestinian "authority" built?

 

[Marginal]

Of course Iraq would have been better served had Hussein honored international borders...

Haven't we established that Saddam was a poopie head yet? But you're right, if one country throws out the rulebook, it's a free for all from then on. (Even if you wait a decade.)

Who do you think is paying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure? In less than four years after bombing the hell out of them, the US government assisted by the EVIL Halliburton has Iraqi oil pumping again. Electricity and water service in most areas are coming online.

How much could've been built without the administration funneling money into contractors who openly defrauded the government? How does the administration covering for these frauds help the troops? How does sending loyal to the GOP, but wholly unqualified cronies over to oversee the reconstruction help the troops? Heck, how much good will was blown upon disbanding the Iraqi army alone?

Ignoring gross wastes of taxpayer money, and the subsequent damage such abuses actually do to the efforts the troops are putting in both in moral and personal peril won't make the problems go away. Rather than piss away the US army over some GOP glad handing, shouldn't we be just a little concerned about their welfare and how our actions at home are directly interfering with their duties abroad?

 

[Big Don]

The troops would have been better served by a Congress that backed them better. The troops would have been better served by the media giving less publicity to the kooks like code pink and jesse mac beth. The troops would have been better served had Jack Murtha not called them murderers. The troops would have been better served by lots of things. Pointing the finger at the Bush administration about how the troops would have been better served is disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at worst.

 

[Marginal]

The troops would have been better served by a Congress that backed them better. The troops would have been better served by the media giving less publicity to the kooks like code pink and jesse mac beth. The troops would have been better served had Jack Murtha not called them murderers. The troops would have been better served by lots of things. Pointing the finger at the Bush administration about how the troops would have been better served is disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at worst.

Actually, I was simply saying that looking the other way gives aid and comfort the the enemy and damages the moral of our troops. I don't understand why some folks want to flag wave but balk at actually supporting our national interests.

 

[Cruentus]

Goodness. Let me try to get this thread back on track. I don't really want to get into bi-partisen debates or discussions on personal backgrounds of the elected (like Bush's military record, for example). Those are probably worthy topics for other threads. So here we go...

With what you are proposing, Cruentus, what controls are in place to check a president, hell bent on a war, of which the citizenry has grown tired?

MichealEdward brings up a very good point of discussion here, and raising a few fundamental questions.

How does one "check" the Pres. regarding military decisions?

I can say with certainty, constitutional or not, the way to NOT do it is through cutting funding.

Now, keep in mind we aren't talking about controlling costs and making sure that funds aren't overexessive, as I believe this is a nessicary check. We are talking about cutting costs as a means to stop an unpopular war.

The idea of the "power of the purse" as a means to check the Presidents power was put in place during a time of powder and ball ammo where soldiers didn't have to worry about IED's, for example. Yet, even with the lack of technology, wars before the Industrial age involved more casualties then we can even imagine today. We lost about 620,000 soldiers during the Civil war in about a 4 year period in comparison to the 3,000 or so we have lost in about the same length of time in Iraq. We lost over 400,000 in U.S. troops during WWII. They didn't have armored vehicles and body armor and the technology that we have today, and the numbers show.

The amount of killed and wounded in Iraq is terrible, period. But I cannot even imagine losing even 100,000 people, let alone over 600,000 or 400,000.

Now, I am not saying that these wars are a fair comparison to Iraq, because they are not. But what I am saying is that, when pondering these questions, we have to ask ourselves if we want to go back to fighting wars the old fashion way? Because the fact of the matter is, 28,000 or so have been injured in this Iraq war, and many of these soldiers (as in by the thousands) would have been dead if it wasn't for the equipment and technology that we are paying for.

Cutting funding for troops doesn't translate into an immediate troop withdraw. It translates into soldiers having to go without, and people dying because of it. Because back in the early days when control of the purse was valid, the "purse" only paid for the bare essentials to run a war, because the technology didn't exist to have anything but the essentials. So, this was much more impacting, because with pre-industrial revolution wars, troop withdrawl would have been nessicary if extra funding was cut. Today, if the extra funding was cut, we could still run a war and pay for the bare essentials through other means and the general budget for quite sometime. Therefore, our troops would still be deployed at the Presidents command; they just won't have the life saving equipment that they need.

This is evident from the beginning of the war, where there were equipment shortages, and soldiers were having to buy and rig their own equipment. This or go without, as they more often did.

But, do we have any historical precidence in the post WWII era where "controlling the purse" has been used as an effective means to stop a war, and where troops didn't suffer for that decision? We really don't. But the evidence from this war with soldiers not having good gear or going without due to budgetary constrains does speak to what would actually happen with a cut budget.

So, I know that in this day and age, "controlling the purse" is the wrong way to check the president's power based on the results that the evidence shows it will bring, regardless of it being constitutional.

So...

How do we then check the Presidents power, if not through "power of the purse"?

This goes back to M.Edwards original question. Let's explore what we have available today.

1. Congress had the power in the beginning to authorize the war in the first place.

This is something we forget. Congress had every opportunity in the beginning to not allow the Iraq war to happen. But, because many of these people who are against the war today were more worried about their careers and their popularity ratings, most of them opted to allow the administration to do what they wanted to do. Sure, they insult our intelligence as the American public now by saying stuff like "we didn't vote to go to war, we voted to let the President make his own decision," and "We were dupped and lied too just like everyone else," and so forth. Well, don't believe the hype. I am of the opinion that most, if not all people in Congress knew that by allowing the Administration to make the decision regarding Iraq, they were effectively authorizing the war. Furthermore, I know that most of these legislators knew that this ment a lengthy occupation that would cost us an astronomical amount of resources.

So for all of those "anti-war" congress members who voted for the war originally, shame on them. They had their chance then, they made their decision, and now they have to live with the consequences of their decision; this, rather then allow the troops to die further while the try to reverse those consequences because now everyone is mad at them.

2. Since Congress didn't utilize their first and most effective line of defense above, they can try to check the Presidents power through a figurative game of tug-o-war with legislation.

They can try to pass bills for things like time-lines and strategies and so forth, of which the president can veto. They can also refuse to pass through any legislation that supports the administrations agenda. This is what the democratically controlled congress is in the process of doing now.

None of this will directly stop the war, as evident by today's situation. But, if the legislative tug-o-war game doesn't persuede the President to stop the war himself, these strategies frame the approval ratings for all sides, and these ratings and discussions carry over into the next election, as we can also see happening today.

Leading us to...

3. Elect someone else who will stop the war.

This is exactly why we have term limits, folks. The fact that the Presidential seat faces an election every 4 years, and the same President can't be elected more then twice, is a check and balance of the Presidents power in and of itself. No matter what happends, under our constitution our current President will no longer be in charge in 2009. Who we put in charge will be what will determine the outcome in Iraq for that term. At the very least, waiting for this to occur is a better option then leaving our soldiers high and dry.

Yet, there is one more option...

4. Impeachment is an option if the President or his administration has done something unconstitutional or illegal.

If the President isn't doing anything illegal, then this isn't really an option. But, many of the anti-war officials and voting base are often quoted saying that this administration has behaved illegally and unconstitutionally in regards to this war. This may or may not be true. It is certainly a valid thing to explore.

But I will say that if it is true, then Congress does need to impeach the president, as it is their DUTY and RESPONSABILITY to do so as a means of protecting our nation, not just their perrogative based on popularity. However, if it is not true, or at least if they aren't going to go through impeachment trials to find out, then they need to stop saying otherwise (that the administration is criminal, and so forth), as it is just negative rhetoric that only fosters hate and polarization, and accomplishes nothing constructive.

These are the 4 things congress can do besides cut funding. This leads us to another question...

3. Does the executive branch have too much power?

If we go on the assumption that in today's wars, "power of the purse" as a means to choke out a war is no longer a valid way to check the Presidents power, then that begs the question. Does the President have too much power?

I don't know, at least as it applies to waging war. I think the executive branch, as with the Federal government, has too much power in general, which is worthy of another topic. However, as it applies to waging war, I am not so sure.

I am inclined to say that because Congress has the ability to give or deny permission in the beginning, and that they know their limits as well as the administrations agenda prior to giving that permission, that they have to weigh the consequences and live with those consequences if they do authorize war. I am inclined to say that once given permission to start a conflict, the executive branch ("commander and chief") needs to be given the opportunity to do what it is designed for in this situation; that is, wage that conflict within the 'rules of war' in the most effective way possible for the sake of our own security. And this needs to happen without the restriction of a congress who's mind tends to change with the opinion polls.

So, I lean towards the idea that when it comes to waging war, the Presidents power isn't too excessive, even with the "power of the purse" not being a valid means to end a war is our day and age. However, this is really open for discussion, as I am not solid on this particular point.

Well, this post addresses a number of on-topic points to think about. I apologize for the spelling and gramatical errors that are no doubt numerous, as it is now late and I need to sleep rather then proofread...

Good night and good luck,

C.

 

[michaeledward]

So, you are saying that there is no way to stop a meglomaniacal, insane President until his term is up. And, it also seems you are saying that any who wish to end a futile war, started by the insane bastard at the top, are cowards and traitors. It doesn't matter what the citizenry think, or want to have happen. They must live with their bad decision, for at least four years. Probably longer, because of the nature of the political hiring.

Seems to me, that there should be some other check on a Unitary Executive.

A revolution every now and then, I guess is required.


P.S. Some young man once asked the powerful in Congress, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake." Based on the defense of your position, this question must be asked over and over again. Good soldiers they may be, but bad leaders do them a dis-service, I believe.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Let congress run a war? Lord help us. You cant fight wars by committee. Cru is right on IMO. Congress was riding the fence. They didnt want to declare war and take responsibility, but if it was going to be a quick "mission accomplished" they wanted to be part of it. God help them if they STOOD against the war and it turned into a cake walk heros welcome. So they let the Pres make the decision and take the blame. Well now that it has turned into hard work they want to distance themselves and make excuses. ALL of them are pathetic excuses for leaders IMO.