Cardin says he would support cutting funding for Iraq war

JaJae · 10-29-2006, 09:40 PM

Iraq war is key point of dispute in Senate race - baltimoresun.com

If that does not work, however, Cardin said he would be willing to vote to cut off funding for the war. "If Democrats could present it in the right way, I would clearly support it," he said.

Elections are around the corner. A lot of people from Maryland have family or friends in Iraq. I don't think the majority of Americans would support cut off funding our troops and leaving them unequipped. This is extremely radical.

Steele is pretty far down in the polls. It will be interesting to see if this story catches more weight before elections. I think it could seriously hurt him if the independents know he would "clearly support" cutting off funding to our troops.

motivez · 10-29-2006, 09:44 PM

Power of the purse should be used responsibly, but if the Bush Administration isn't willing to do what's required to change course in Iraq.. what other options would they have?

JaJae · 10-29-2006, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Power of the purse should be used responsibly, but if the Bush Administration isn't willing to do what's required to change course in Iraq.. what other options would they have?

It's one thing to be for bringing the troops home. It's another to stop funding them.

motivez · 10-29-2006, 09:54 PM

Stopping funding would mean they'd be brought home, though. You think the President would simply leave them over there if it were to happen?

JaJae · 10-29-2006, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Stopping funding would mean they'd be brought home, though. You think the President would simply leave them over there if it were to happen?

For a while yes. I think he would run then dry and use whatever happens as a means to pass funding.

motivez · 10-29-2006, 10:06 PM

Well, then that would be his fault. I personally think it's ridiculous to keep troops over there in active combat without changing strategies.. since they're dying for nothing, with no goals, making no progress, etc..

Scratch that, not ridiculous, stupid. Criminal. And a whole host of other adjectives.

If the President isn't willing to change to a strategy that's not going to have our troops out there flailing while he tries to assure everyone that the reality we see doesn't really exist because he says so, then I'd probably support pulling funding as well as a means of saying, either work with us to fix the problems, or we're leaving.

Thorgrim · 10-29-2006, 10:22 PM

When they cut off the funding in 1974-75 for SV, there were no troops sitting around without fuel or ammo...they simply came home

That's what he is proposing as a POSSIBILITY if rash actions are taken

Suppose civil war turns into all out war against Americans? and 1,000+ are dying every month? With no possible solution for many years...and Bush keeps saying "we need to stay" and the military generals start resigning in mass

Sounds like cutting off the funding would be the only way to pry him away from hurting America

avsp · 10-30-2006, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

For a while yes. I think he would run then dry and use whatever happens as a means to pass funding.

Such brinkmanship would surely be seen a victory by anti-democratic forces worldwide?

WickedLou9 · 10-30-2006, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's one thing to be for bringing the troops home. It's another to stop funding them.

If they cut off funding, we have to bring the troops home. It's not like we would just leave them all over there on thier own. Cutting funding = forcing the presidents hand and bringing the troops home.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-30-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's one thing to be for bringing the troops home. It's another to stop funding them.

The idea behind not funding them is to force Bush to bring them home. The idea that the Democrats consider it an option to leave soldiers in the field ill equipped and starving is bullshit campaign rhetoric.