It's not money allocated in a supplemental that's keeping the troops in Iraq

[bigtree]

It's Bush's refusal to withdraw them and the inability of Congress to manage a veto-proof majority of legislators to vote for a bill which includes a timetable for withdrawal.

[CTLawGuy]

1. Nothing short of a threat of impeachment from Bush's own party

will force bush to pull out the troops. he will find the money if we don't give him any.

[TahitiNut]

2. It'd only take 41 Senators to block further war funding without a withdrawal deadline.

:shrug:

[frogcycle]

7. absolutely right

a game of "chicken"

name calling and spinning like mad, both sides keep repeating talking points saying
"he's intransigent"

"they are playing politics with the lives of our poor troops who have to go naked and throw bullets at the bad guys"

"he's unreasonable"

"they are the devil incarnate - those 9 troops blown to bits today would have been ok if THEY had funded the fancy new humvees"

etc etc, while the media run with the rw spin

ultimately someone blinks.

it would not have been him.


I wish they had gone another round or two, but this WAS inevitable.

[leftupnorth]

3. It would simply take standing your ground to get them home.

Either by default because of no money, or through a timetable passed with additional money.

This is the worst possible outcome. Period.

[brentspeak]

4. Don't say that. Facts and reality might make some people's heads explode.

The only thing keeping their craniums from combusting is to unfairly blame the Democrats for everything, and more.

[bigtree]

10. The furor over Democrats making good on their promise to not hold up funding

is leaving Bush and his republicans without the same level of criticism for their own continued obstruction.

[EFerrari]

5. Wrong. No money, no war. n/t

[azurnoir]

6. Bush would not have

withdrawn the troops money or no it is that simple, I do not think that even if the bill had passed he would have withdrawn them, just because the legislative branch passes something does not mean Bush will do it, je does not care about the law or public opinion or what his supposed party suffers or anyone else for that matter because of his actions, he was put in office for ONE reason and he's doing it everything else is/was a means to that end.

[Erika]

8. Even so, Pelosi and Reid acted as enablers

to W and this insane war in Iraq. Damn them both.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. No veto proof majority is needed to cut the funds that pay for the war.

In fact, Liebermann could bolt to the GOP tonight and Pelosi could stop the funding for the illegal occupation in the house, if she wanted to.

No money means no war.

The Dems just voted money to continue the illegal occupation of Iraq and the continued slaughter of our soldiers. They bought the war from bush, cheap.

[bigtree]

11. all that has to happen to bring the troops home is for legislators to vote to end it

the troops would come home money and all.

On the other hand, even if we withheld this one supplemental there's no way of knowing how long Bush could and would drag the occupation out before he took notice of any shortfall and cared enough about the integrity of the forces to end his occupation. There are plenty of reports, like the GAO study last week which point out the several options Bush has to divert money and continue to limp our troops along for some time.

[stubtoe]

12. Ray of hope ...

on Wednesday Rep. Obey said that the practical result of this vote was to transfer the debate to the '08 regular defense bill, which I believe rolls around in September. He hopes that more support in Congress will emerge for that vote, than the Demo's could raise for this supplemental.

NPR report link (the May 23 story)
Sorry, you have to hit the "listen" button. Obey's remark is at the end.