"Funding the Troops" a myth? per Glenn Greenwald. Someone please explain, I think it's important.

[yodermon]

Glenn Greenwald posted this at Salon back on Feb. 12th:

...
What does seem clear is that one of the principal factors accounting for the reluctance of Democrats to advocate de-funding is that the standard corruption that infects our political discourse has rendered the de-funding option truly radioactive. Republicans and the media have propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition that to de-fund a war is to endanger the "troops in the field."

This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options.

That is why virtually all political figures run away as fast and desperately as possible from the idea of de-funding a war -- it's as though they have to strongly repudiate de-funding options because de-funding has become tantamount to "endangering our troops" (notwithstanding the fact that Congress has de-funded wars in the past and it is obviously done in coordination with the military and over a scheduled time frame so as to avoid "endangering the troops").
...

http://ww2.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/12/democrats/index.html
(emphases mine)

OK. Can someone please explain this to me? It's very obvious to Glenn, but it's not obvious to me and many on DU, apparently, because I've seen these exact arguments in place on this board in the last 24 hours, (i.e that the Dems had no choice but to give shrub his blank check or else we wouldn't be "funding the troops").

My problem with Glenn's piece is that he makes this pronouncement without explaining how it works. Isn't the war supplemental what provides for the material needs for the day-to-day prosecution of the war? If Congress doesn't appropriate such funds, AND the potus doesn't order the troops withdrawn, then aren't the troops stuck there without necessary resources?

Someone please deconstruct this for me, because I, like our Congressional Democrats, have fallen victim to the corp. media's conventional wisdom on the matter, and I can't get my mind around it. Please use simple 8th grade language, and if possible, avoid political posturing and grandstanding. The most clear and concise explanation will be forwarded to the House & Senate leadership.

Thanks
Yodermon.

[Phredicles]

1. Thanks; I've been unclear on this point too.

[genie_weenie]

2. Cutting off funding means NO contracts

for the military-Industrial-Complex. That is why leading members of government are against it.

It does not mean my Admin Gunny would say "Sorry Sgt Genie-Weenie you aren't getting BAH this month because the Defeatocrats cut funding. Also give me back your helmet."

But, because so few war supporters think critically and just use their r-complex they are easy to maniuplate via emotional fight or flight reactions.

[EnviroBat]

7. Hell, the money is not really going to the troops in the first place.

This is the entire reason they've been under equipped since the beginning. We are being ROBBED in the name of troop funding. Out treasury is being raped. Congress just allowed it to happen again. 100 bil now gone to the war profiteering, no bid contract holding friends of bush-co. He's stealing us blind and calling it war funding. Meanwhile, we keep paying our taxes so the cycle can continue. How much longer are we, as a nation, going to sit here and let this fucker rob us blind? Why doesn't this bill demand an itemization of where each and every blood-soaked dollar bill is spent? How many trillions of dollars has this war gone "over budget" now? Where's the fucking money go bush? You fucker.

[Richard Steele]

3. It's a genuine concern, because B*sh would do it.

That's the deal- he's holding the troops HOSTAGE in Iraq.
If we stop providing funds, he won't bring them home.

He really -WILL- just leave them sitting there until
they run out of food and ammunition, and then blame
their plight on the evil "Libruls".

And about 30% of the Nation will take his side, just
as always.

[yodermon]

4. Thanks

that is kind of where my thinking was going on this. don't want to believe it.
BUT-- why can't our Dems STATE THIS point blank?
"bush is holding our troops hostage, we call him on it" etc

[treestar]

6. Exactly - they have been exploiting "support the troops" for five

years to get what they want. It gives them a big opening. Even if statistics overall show the troops did not suffer, the argument is more than plausible. And they will stage or relate stories of troops who didn't get something. In fact, they will even go into Walter Reed, or to those individuals who aren't covered by the label "personality disorder" and it will suddenly be all Congress' fault.

[treestar]

5. I was thinking this, too, though, and it's not obvious to me

Seems they have to fund the war or the M$M will suddenly have headlines and stories about deprived troops.

* is still President, and the Democratic Congress did not suddenly become the Decider. Some posts on DU act as if they did.

Even if it's not true that the troops will suffer somehow, that is how the media will spin it, guaranteed.

[yodermon]

8. shameless kick

esp. after reading skinner's post.