Would voting down the bill have brought the troops home

[Az]

I have heard a couple of different explanations. It was a supplemental bill meaning it was for support issues. In other words the troops would still be funded even without it but the contractors and other support would have to be scaled back.

If that was true what power did the Dems have to use this bill to actually bring the troops home? Or is that mistaken?

[Skinner]

1. No, voting down the bill would not have brought the troops home.

If they had voted down the bill, then everyone would have to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that would pass. If this bill had not passed, there would have been another bill.

What that bill would have been is anyone's guess. But I think there is no doubt that it would have included funding.

[Az]

2. Well then it seems to me that they were between a rock and a hard place

Playing politics with the bill would have hurt the troops. If their goal is to bring the troops home then this bill was of no use to them. It didn't have the leverage to bring them home. And not voting for it would seem to hurt the ones they are trying to save.

[Skinner]

12. I think the argument can be made that they were.

Indeed, they would be *eventually* if they could not come to an agreement with Bush.

But my personal opinion is that they gave in way too early. They have made it clear that they do not have the stomach for a fight.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. And if no bill passed?

What then, eh?

[Skinner]

10. In the highly unlikely event that that happened...

...then I believe Bush would have to decide whether to bring the troops home, or leave them in Iraq and play chicken with Congress.

(At which point Congress would almost certainly provide funding, IMHO.)

[Johonny]

3. No

I think it's pretty clear Bush would leave the troops in Iraq funding or no funding. He gives not a crap for them or their lives. Why would he care if they're funded?

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I think it's pretty clear if bush did there would be an insurrection by the troops and

by the American people.

If I don't give Joey money for meth, he might rob a gas station and I just couldn't have that on my conscience, so here's a hundred bucks for your fix Joey.

Yeah, that's how it works.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. No. But that was no reason to collaborate with the regime.

[Az]

8. I understand not wanting to help them in any way

But at what price? Do we hold our breath like he does and not care what effects it has on others lives? Do we become them?

What is our objective? Is it to defeat Bush or is it to get the troops home safely?

[elehhhhna]

5. Voting FOR the bill guarantees they stay longer. Period.

[Az]

9. True but

Not voting for the bill reduces their safety. It's Sophie's Choice. Longer or safer? Which would you rather have?

[elehhhhna]

14. Vetoing it reduces theri safety. That's the point.

Congress must be aware that Bush would gladly play "chicken" w/ US soldiers lives.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. It might have.

What is certain is that sending Dumbfuck another 100B is not going to bring the troops home.

[BurtWorm]

11. Ideally, the bill should have included some provision requiring Bush

to explain why keeping the troops engaged in the middle of not just one but several civil wars in a foreign country is rational foreign policy. As you point out, the troops' basic needs through September would have been met. This bill was *supplemental* to what was already approved. There was, therefore, no need for this bill except to give Bush more of our money to waste on his pet fiasco. The Democrats had virtually until September to come under pressure for "not supporting the troops."

But even then, Bush would have been allowed by an obscure civil war era law (The Feed and Forage Act) to authorize payments for the basic upkeep of troops in the field. In fact, I think it would have been a brilliant move if the Democrats had passed a bill requiring--or "authorizing"--Bush to employ the Feed and Forage Act in the event of an impasse in Congress over appropriations for the war in Iraq. This would have made it clearer to the public that "supporting the troops" is entirely in Bush's hands.