Reply #43: there's no evidence that holding back that one supplemental bill would end it [View All]

Holding back that supplemental -- which contained DEMOCRATIC priorities for our soldiers already deployed -- which contained ESSENTIAL funding for the troops in harms way which republicans had neglected for the four years they were in control of Congress -- and in the face of their FAILURE to move Bush one inch with the previous, vetoed effort -- holding back that ONE supplemental, with LIMITED funding, would have directed Bush to do NOTHING.

That's what makes the 'morally superior' argument about some defunding scheme ending the occupation completely absurd. If there actually are funds 'in the pipeline' to support the troops in some withdrawal, as Kucinich and others who fault Democrats for providing those needed funds for the stranded troops, then there was money enough for Bush to continue his occupation without that ONE, LIMITED supplemental; at least for the term the *Democratic funding bill covered.

ONE vote with a veto-busting margin of republicans -- in addition to the majority of Democrats already pledged and ready to vote AGAIN for legislation containing timelines -- and the troops come home, MONEY AND ALL.


edit: *