Senate votes to block Iraq war funds »

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 86

• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  cfinke

  Nov. 16, 2007, 11:30 a.m.

  Title is somewhat inaccurate. The Senate did not vote to block funds, they failed to pass a bill that would grant funds. Title should read: "Senate continues to accomplish nothing."
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  GHOSTWHOWALKS

  Nov. 16, 2007, 1:50 p.m.

  I didn't expect anything less.
• 

  anioklyComment has been removed: Spammer
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  abntv

  Nov. 16, 2007, 9:29 p.m.

  Keeping the troops supplied by eating into other areas in DOD means cutting back on money spent on the military here at home...
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  dheg

  Nov. 16, 2007, 11:49 p.m.

  I see this as a positive step for two reasons:

  1. The US has been into this 'war' in Iraq for almost 5 years now. If the our federal government feels that there is reason to continue it, then it should be a budgeted item. There is absolutely no reason that monies should be appropriated outside of the normal budget cycle. If our glorious leader has a vision of victory he should be able to project that into a plan of action and budget it accordingly. After more than 4 years, they cannot say that these are unanticipated expenses.

  2. Not providing this funding is a step towards forwarding my (and a majority of Iraqi and Americans) vision which is to simply let the Iraqis have Iraq. It is not a matter of victory or defeat as GW et al would have us believe. Although he doesn't say it, victory for GW is to claim Iraq's oil wealth and use Iraq as a base to claim more. But that really isn't victory as neither Iraqis or Americans (in general) gain from that. (cont next post)
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  dheg

  Nov. 16, 2007, 11:56 p.m.

  (cont) and to remove our military is not defeat. It is simply to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

  The DOD is not going to run out of money any time soon and the troops will not be left without the tools they need (certainly not the tools they need to come home). Of course that is not what we will be hearing for the next month and half or so. Gates will probably find some civilians to lay off to make a point, and there will be words tossed around about the irresponsible Democrats and the pain that the Pentagon is feeling. It will all be an act to create public pressure for the Dems to cave.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  ABANOCLA

  Nov. 17, 2007, 12:57 a.m.

  The Dems do not need public pressure to cave in. They have already mastered that , into an art form.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  1-2-Oscar

  Nov. 17, 2007, 7:03 a.m.

  The Democrats would like to make next year's election a referendum on the war, and on the manner in which it has been conducted (and mismanaged). From the standpoint of attracting votes and winning elections, this is probably a very good strategy. From the standpoint of American casualties, it will probably have little direct effect--in fact, if shortages of manpower and equipment occur in Iraq, commanders will have to act less aggressively and casualties might actually go down.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  quackpot

  Nov. 17, 2007, 8:08 a.m.

  Afer almost five years, it is time for Iraq to step up to the plate and take care of its own problems.

  The Iraq government needs a STRONG signal that the U.S. money train is not leaving the station this time.
• 

  anioklyComment has been removed: Spammer
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  tchef

  Nov. 17, 2007, 11:06 a.m.

  It's past time for the Iraqi's to take control of their own destiny. They need to govern themselves and defend themselves. If we leave the Shiites in the country will not allow Al Quiada to stay and with out us they will have no reason to. The Shiites will also align themselves with Iran, but since we put them in power there is no stopping that. There may be civil war for a while but us staying is only delaying that.

  The best thing we can do for our soldiers is thank them for their service and bring them home for a much deserved rest.
• 

  anioklyComment has been removed: Spammer
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  fsev41

  Nov. 17, 2007, 2:41 p.m.

  Even the great General Petraeus said early on that there is no military solution to the Iraq problem without a political solution. How much time do we give them to come up with that political solution, two years, five years a hundred years? Theyve had two years since elections and they have come up with zero political reconcilitations and there are apparently none on the horizon. These people have been feuding with each other for centuries. We must cut our losses and get out as quickly as possible so we can focus our resources on real terrorist threats not GWB's bogeymen.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  StarLord

  Nov. 17, 2007, 4:08 p.m.

  Is it just me, or have the conservatives on this thread missed the point?

  I seem to recall (among others) crghss, tanglang and aniokly criticising the Democrats for spinelessness earlier. Now the Dems have discovered their spine, and you're criticising them for that too?

  Your words reveal your true opinion - no matter what the Democrats do, it will be wrong in your eyes. If they vote to cough up the money, they're "spineless". If they vote to pay the money only on conditions, they're traitors and out to get the troops. Talk about Hobbs' choice....

  I, for one, think that it is long overdue that Congress discovers its prerogatives again, and one of those prerogatives is control of the public purse. Conservatives never objected to the Repub Congress using it to their own political ends, so kindly tone down the hypocrisy when the Dems are using the treasury to force a withdrawal from a war that you shouldn't be in.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  DRK1

  Nov. 17, 2007, 9:47 p.m.

  aniokly

  you state above that the surge is working.please explain why you feel it`s working.seems to me your view is quite simplistic and your statements about democrates just obnoxious.

All 86 comments are shown.