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

[michaeledward]

Yes, Congress, by Constitutional decree, has the authority to raise an army and to declare war. I have said it many times ... including times when I was in the small minority that opposed the war ... that Congress abdicated its responsibility with the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. Much blame lies with them.

But not all, much blame also resides with the political operations within the White House, who manipulated the disaster events into a political weapon. (see Senator Max Cleland). The Congressional Resolution was an attempt to split the baby presented by Misters Bush, Cheney and Rove; well played by them.

 

[Cruentus]

So, you are saying that there is no way to stop a meglomaniacal, insane President until his term is up.

See, here is what I mean. If he really is an "insane meglomaniac," I mean REALLY, then he could be impeached. Since he isn't, then we have to assume that as unpopular and possibly as bad as he is, he isn't bad enough for impeachment.

Of course, another option is that he really is "insane" or "Crooked" or whatever, and Congress is to weak willed to pursue an impeachment. If that is true, then this is a Congress that we should not trust to make decisons, and that means we need to do some house cleaning on voting day. I digress here, because I don't really believe that this is completely true.

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.

I needed to isolate this point to be CLEAR that I am not saying that at all. I think I have been clear on this, but I will say it again, I am not saying that people who are against the war are cowards or traitors or even unpatriotic. I am saying that people who are willing to try to use a strategy to end the war that would involve further risking the lives of our soldiers on the ground is morally corrupt.

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.

Well, Congresses power is limited once permission is granted, which is why that decision needs to be taken a lot more seriously then it was. And yes, if you make a decision, you have to live with the consequences. Some of these overprivledged buffons in office (on all sides and branches) forget that there is an element of personal responsability that you can't talk or buy your way out of.

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

You are possibly correct here. It would be something I would entertain. The difficulty here is that this check couldn't tip the balance in such a way that it would make Congress too powerful. This is important to our security because as I mentioned, the opinions in congress sway with the polls. The way it is right now, we are safeguarded from that volitility. So with whatever changes were made, these safeguards would have to continue.

Good soldiers they may be, but bad leaders do them a dis-service, I believe.

Here is something that we both agree on.

 

[michaeledward]

I needed to isolate this point to be CLEAR that I am not saying that at all. I think I have been clear on this, but I will say it again, I am not saying that people who are against the war are cowards or traitors or even unpatriotic. I am saying that people who are willing to try to use a strategy to end the war that would involve further risking the lives of our soldiers on the ground is morally corrupt.

The irony of the phrase "morally corrupt", with regard to the current situation in Iraq and Washington, and the events leading to this situation, is heartbreaking and painful.

 

[Makalakumu]

The only person that can put the Troops in danger is the President. If congress defunded the war, the only person responsible for keeping the troops in harms way is the Commander in Cheif. The current funding bill is for future spending. If the President had to pull troops out, the Pentagon would have to reallocate the money that already exists to do that. Thus, there really isn't any point here. Cutting future spending doesn't endanger the troops. The only thing that does that is keeping them in Iraq.

 

[Cruentus]

The only person that can put the Troops in danger is the President. If congress defunded the war, the only person responsible for keeping the troops in harms way is the Commander in Cheif. The current funding bill is for future spending. If the President had to pull troops out, the Pentagon would have to reallocate the money that already exists to do that. Thus, there really isn't any point here. Cutting future spending doesn't endanger the troops. The only thing that does that is keeping them in Iraq.

As I understand it, that statement is basically wrong. When funding is cut for future spending, as I understand it Officers see their budget reduced pretty quick as a defense mechanism; in case they have to sustain the mission for longer then what the current funds would provide. The impact on our ground troops of a budget cut happens very quickly.

 

[Makalakumu]

As I understand it, that statement is basically wrong. When funding is cut for future spending, as I understand it Officers see their budget reduced pretty quick as a defense mechanism; in case they have to sustain the mission for longer then what the current funds would provide. The impact on our ground troops of a budget cut happens very quickly.

That assumes that the mission continues as usual. If funding gets cut, the hard decision falls on the President. The soldiers are only following orders...

 

[michaeledward]

As I understand it, that statement is basically wrong. When funding is cut for future spending, as I understand it Officers see their budget reduced pretty quick as a defense mechanism; in case they have to sustain the mission for longer then what the current funds would provide. The impact on our ground troops of a budget cut happens very quickly.

Again, the Officers who would see their budgets reduced are Stateside. Money from the 500 billion dollar annual defense appropriate would be reallocated to Iraq.

So, you may not have a successful missle defense test ... oh, wait. OK, so you may not have a successful deployment of the Osprey .... well, that doesn't work either.

Some programs here in the States may suffer for lack of funds, but the troops would be able to deploy out of the combat zone in safety.

 

[Gordon Nore]

See, here is what I mean. If he really is an "insane meglomaniac," I mean REALLY, then he could be impeached. Since he isn't, then we have to assume that as unpopular and possibly as bad as he is, he isn't bad enough for impeachment.See, here is what I mean. If he really is an "insane meglomaniac," I mean REALLY, then he could be impeached. Since he isn't, then we have to assume that as unpopular and possibly as bad as he is, he isn't bad enough for impeachment.

I have to ask the question: Is that how the impeachment process really works? Is there really that much logic to it?

Without the benefit of encyclopedic knowledge of US history, I can only draw upon events in my lifetime. During that time, apart from the Bush presidency, I can recall only two other administrations when the subject came up seriously: Nixon's and Clinton's. Nixon left office mid-way through his second term if memory serves, and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford. Impeachment hearings for Clinton took place near the end of his second term, and what happened? He sat in White House for a few months and then left.

Ford probably had good reason to pardon Nixon. After the era of Kent State, Watergate, Vietnam, impeachment proceedings and possible criminal trials would have been disastrous to the American psyche. Lord knows how many years that would have dragged on.

Impeachment today? First of all, the Democratic Congress took it off the table -- what was it? -- the day after the mid-terms practically. So it never really was on the table; it was a ploy to get elected. The way I see it, for a Democratic Congress to impeach the current President, they would be re-inviting a lengthy discussion about Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq, particularly those who purportedly had access to the same intel the Oval Office did. How many Democratic Presidential hopefuls would be sunk?

It's one thing to impeach a President for lies or misdeeds emanating from the Oval Office; quite another to impeach the President for acts that Congress contributed to. I see impeachment in my lifetime as a matter of politics and opportunity, not a matter of a President's character or crimes.

 

[Cruentus]

M.Edwards and Upnorth;

You guys are assuming that with a budget cut, the administration would have to reallocate funds to buy time, and that they would at some point bring the troops out.

But, what is it in this administrations record and history that makes you think that they would decide to reallocate enough funds to keep our troops protected, or that they would opt to remove troops?

No, I don't think so.

I think that their record and stance on this war points to the likelihood that they would keep troops in Iraq while allocating the bare minimum required to keep the war going. Furthermore, I think that bare minimum will be all they will have unless they significantly cut programs, which I don't see happening on a large enough scale.

 

[Cruentus]

It's one thing to impeach a President for lies or misdeeds emanating from the Oval Office; quite another to impeach the President for acts that Congress contributed to. I see impeachment in my lifetime as a matter of politics and opportunity, not a matter of a President's character or crimes.

You may have a point on how impeachment has been used in the past; but that doesn't discount it as an available option for a legitiment abuse of power...

 

[michaeledward]

M.Edwards and Upnorth;

You guys are assuming that with a budget cut, the administration would have to reallocate funds to buy time, and that they would at some point bring the troops out.

But, what is it in this administrations record and history that makes you think that they would decide to reallocate enough funds to keep our troops protected, or that they would opt to remove troops?

No, I don't think so.

I think that their record and stance on this war points to the likelihood that they would keep troops in Iraq while allocating the bare minimum required to keep the war going. Furthermore, I think that bare minimum will be all they will have unless they significantly cut programs, which I don't see happening on a large enough scale.

Two points.

We are back to an discussion of 'good leaders'.

And, I think the funds would be reallocated because I read the article that explained these contingency plans. SecDef Gates discussed these options in front of one of the committees earlier this summer. I have searched for the committee records and articles, but can't seem to lock in on the key words that filter out the chaff. And, the language in the Defense Appropriations bill specifically includes permission to reallocate funds as I described.

The fact is, demonstrated with your position, is that politically, any Congressional Representative that attempts to act on the wishes of 75% -80% of the American people and stop this war, will be portrayed as a traitor come October 2008.

 

[Cruentus]

Two points.

We are back to an discussion of 'good leaders'.

And, I think the funds would be reallocated because I read the article that explained these contingency plans. SecDef Gates discussed these options in front of one of the committees earlier this summer. I have searched for the committee records and articles, but can't seem to lock in on the key words that filter out the chaff. And, the language in the Defense Appropriations bill specifically includes permission to reallocate funds as I described.

If you can find info on that, make sure to post it. I'll look too. I actually hope your right on this, as my main concern is that soldiers on the ground are going to get appropriately taken care of regardless of what happends in Washington. I just can't hope something like that will be true without seeing the evidence.

The fact is, demonstrated with your position, is that politically, any Congressional Representative that attempts to act on the wishes of 75% -80% of the American people and stop this war, will be portrayed as a traitor come October 2008.

Sadly, you are probably correct, and this will happen whether it is true or not. I don't know if my "position" demonstrates that, because I am not looking for an opportunity to call someone a traitor, I am just trying to get to the truth of the matter. Unfortunatily, the political game around election time is really more about the name calling then truth, and *** covering then responsibility. That is why the facts around these issues aren't as clear as they should be... :idunno:

 

[Big Don]

The poll numbers that are quoted ad naseum are very misleading.
Ask a few people if we should abandon Iraq at the cost of losing, damn few will say yes.