Question about something Randi

[OwnedByFerrets]

is saying ad nauseum on her show today. She contends that Biden is right and that we (democrats in congress) HAVE to vote for funding the troops in order to INSURE their safety. Although I cannot quote sources, I have heard many other reputable voices say that the troops have MORE than enough money to safely redeploy out of Iraq.
Can anyone explain to me why she keeps saying that if we don't fund this occupation (although she erroneously keeps calling it a war) the troops will die?
She has also seemed very anti-Edwards today. Is that real or am I just imagining it?

[POAS]

1. She says she won't take sides and then

takes sides.

She does have a point about funding.

The money for the Iraq occupation is not in the regular budget and may well never be there. Without a veto proof majority they cannot compell Bush to begin a withdrawal and while there are many sources Bush could tap to continue funding Iraq all of those would come with a price which I can guarantee would punish "Blue" districts and states as well as the poor people of this country in whatever district of state.

[SnoopDog]

4. As others have said...

The Dems simply would not present the Emergency Supplemental Bill… and thus effectively end the funding and the occupation – right?

[POAS]

7. Bush would simply steal the money from other accounts and

the Dem's don't introduce the legislation in any case. The President sends Congress a request for funds and they have to respond. They can say no but also must consider the ramifications. Thos ramifications would NOT be strictly political either.

[SnoopDog]

2. That is why I asked how to de-fund the war…

Randi and Biden are saying that it will take a Dem President in 2008 to end the 'war'…?


:shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1041617&mesg_id=1041617

[Red Zelda]

3. I'm trying to recall

the last time she made sense for more than 5 minutes.
I'd MUCH rather listen to Thom Hartman.

[dave_p]

5. Randi can be admired for her loyalty

... to the Democratic Party as she identifies it. And she takes that loyalty pretty close to the edge, and beyond on some issues.

But I think actvists are entitled to take it a stage further - not in dissing the Party, but in digging their heels in and saying it isn't good enough.

Randi put her voice behind Pelosi early on. That was constructive so far as it went, when all was doubt.

But we've seen how far it went. Other voices need to be heard. I think Nancy's happy with that too.

On the funding, yes, the May vote was a Surge supplemental, so there was enough to cover withdrawal. It won't be so easy next time. It was a once-only chance.

[DaveJ]

I have a dumb question...

What's the difference (if any) between funding the war and funding the military bases that we will have in Iraq? Maybe I'm confused, but I can't imagine anyone on either side backing out on those, to be honest.

[Pab Sungenis]

6. Not funding the war would not make * end the war.

He'd find ways to move other Pentagon funding around to cover it, hurting other needed services like paying soldiers and support operations stateside. He thinks he's above the law, and would go around the law to keep his pet war going.

We need more decisive actions than simply defunding, like outright repealing the authorization of force; make Bush come back to Congress every three months for reauthorization.

[POAS]

8. Your right about the funding

Bush would not however limit his theft to support the war to military budgets. He would raid welfare funding and other social programs also.

I disagree about the effect of repeal of the authorization of force however. The "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution was repealed in 1971 and the war draged on into 1975. A full 4 years later. It is my opinion that the same would hold true today.

[sam sarrha]

9. Because the Reich wing will NOT bring them home... just deny them more necessity's