Home› A Moving Train
Options

Why doesn't Kerry or Hillary try to cut the funding of the Iraq war?

acroyearacroyear Posts: 46
edited August 2006 in A Moving Train
Day in and day out, we hear Kerry or Hillary (and their ilk) whine about how the troops need to be brought home and the war was a mistake (nevermind that they voted for it)- why don't any of them try cutting the funding of the war?
"If you want peace, be prepared for war."
George Washington
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Options
    onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    treason
  • Options
    RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    acroyear wrote:
    Day in and day out, we hear Kerry or Hillary (and their ilk) whine about how the troops need to be brought home and the war was a mistake (nevermind that they voted for it)- why don't any of them try cutting the funding of the war?
    Kerry, perhaps, but I think Hillary's usually pretty hawkish. As for why they don't call for a cut in funding, I'd say there could be a number of factors. One, they're in the minority party, so their proposals probably wouldn't even make it to the floor. Two, with warmongers in control, even if they succeeded in getting the funding cut, the troops wouldn't necessarily be brought home. Instead, they'd probably just be expected to fight the war while underequipped. You know, kind of like they're expected to do now.
  • Options
    RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    onelongsong wrote:
    treason
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    So, um, no it's not treason. You'll have to change the First Amendment before you can level that charge.
  • Options
    Milhouse VanHoutenMilhouse VanHouten Posts: 759
    RainDog wrote:
    So, um, no it's not treason. You'll have to change the First Amendment before you can level that charge.


    Dude... don't give anybody any ideas...
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • Options
    lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    acroyear wrote:
    Day in and day out, we hear Kerry or Hillary (and their ilk) whine about how the troops need to be brought home and the war was a mistake (nevermind that they voted for it)- why don't any of them try cutting the funding of the war?

    If you really listen closely, I don't think either of them have said the war is a mistake and we need to end it. I couldn't find anything quickly on Clinton's site, but Kerry issued this on Aug 3rd:

    http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_08_03.html

    I might have missed it, but I didn't see any mention of the illegitimacy of the war or ending it. Kerry and most Democrats simply make the point that the Republican administration isn't handling the war correctly. They do it in a round-about way to get the anti-war vote.
  • Options
    CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,219
    acroyear wrote:
    Day in and day out, we hear Kerry or Hillary (and their ilk) whine about how the troops need to be brought home and the war was a mistake (nevermind that they voted for it)- why don't any of them try cutting the funding of the war?
    ...
    Because, the way it'll work... the ones that'll suffer are the soldiers in the field and the Haliburton workers on site. The politicians and the administration won't feel a thing.. neither will the executives at Haliburton.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Options
    FredFlintstoneFredFlintstone Posts: 193
    acroyear wrote:
    Day in and day out, we hear Kerry or Hillary (and their ilk) whine about how the troops need to be brought home and the war was a mistake (nevermind that they voted for it)- why don't any of them try cutting the funding of the war?



    I would love to see them try it - then be branded as "against the troops" and "betraying the men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom!"

    He voted against Bush's bill to deficit spend the 2003 Iraq war appropriation, instead calling for a repeal of the tax cuts on the wealthy - and all that got him was a nice chorus of "voting against our troops" by the dumb ass, cheeto eating, American Idol watching american public.
    But hey, whats a 10trillion dollar deficit mean nowadays anyway.
    USA USA
    "Sean Hannity knows there is no greater threat to America today than Bill Clinton 15 years ago"- Stephen Colbert
  • Options
    onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RainDog wrote:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    So, um, no it's not treason. You'll have to change the First Amendment before you can level that charge.

    i don't know if or where you learned first ammendment law but it doesn't apply here. cutting funds would hurt america. voicing opinion does fall under the first ammendment but taking action does not.
  • Options
    know1know1 Posts: 6,763
    Hilary is for the war...she's just against how it's being run.

    That being said, I do not even know why it's called a war at this point. It's an occupation.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Options
    Milhouse VanHoutenMilhouse VanHouten Posts: 759
    onelongsong wrote:
    i don't know if or where you learned first ammendment law but it doesn't apply here. cutting funds would hurt america. voicing opinion does fall under the first ammendment but taking action does not.

    So the federal government isn't allowed to take actions that would "hurt America"? Have you been paying attention?
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • Options
    onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    So the federal government isn't allowed to take actions that would "hurt America"? Have you been paying attention?

    when you take an oath to protect the interests of america; then take action to undermine the efforts of america; that is treason.
  • Options
    Milhouse VanHoutenMilhouse VanHouten Posts: 759
    onelongsong wrote:
    when you take an oath to protect the interests of america; then take action to undermine the efforts of america; that is treason.

    I don't accept the premise of your arguement.

    So, did Bush commit treason when he vetoed the stem cell research funding bill a couple of weeks ago? Did he commit treason when his foreign policy made us unpopular in the global community?
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • Options
    RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    onelongsong wrote:
    when you take an oath to protect the interests of america; then take action to undermine the efforts of america; that is treason.
    And I don't know where you got your idea of Treason, but it still wouldn't apply. Otherwise, I could level the charge against the entire Bush administration for getting us involved in the Iraq war in the first place - as that's done wonders for those who wish to damage America. Oh, and can we charge Papa Bush, or posthumously charge Reagan for creating Bin Laden in the first place?

    No.

    Then calling for an end to the war - even an immediate pullout - is not treason. Nor would putting in a bill to cut funding.
  • Options
    onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RainDog wrote:
    And I don't know where you got your idea of Treason, but it still wouldn't apply. Otherwise, I could level the charge against the entire Bush administration for getting us involved in the Iraq war in the first place - as that's done wonders for those who wish to damage America. Oh, and can we charge Papa Bush, or posthumously charge Reagan for creating Bin Laden in the first place?

    No.

    Then calling for an end to the war - even an immediate pullout - is not treason. Nor would putting in a bill to cut funding.

    bush didn't start the war. he hasn't the power to. it was congress who voted to go along with his idea.
  • Options
    onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    I don't accept the premise of your arguement.

    So, did Bush commit treason when he vetoed the stem cell research funding bill a couple of weeks ago? Did he commit treason when his foreign policy made us unpopular in the global community?

    i believe you have opinions which you base your feelings on; but you clearly don't know or understand the objective.
  • Options
    Milhouse VanHoutenMilhouse VanHouten Posts: 759
    onelongsong wrote:
    i believe you have opinions which you base your feelings on; but you clearly don't know or understand the objective.

    What objective?
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • Options
    RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    onelongsong wrote:
    bush didn't start the war. he hasn't the power to. it was congress who voted to go along with his idea.
    You're right. And it may very well be congress who decides to put an end to it. That's still not treason.
  • Options
    RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    What objective?
    Why, that objective you don't know or understand, of course.

    The only objective I can see is perpetual war and a permanent military presence in an area of the world that simply doesn't want us. Reasons? Well, those just blow with the wind.
Sign In or Register to comment.