Joe Biden: Iraq funding vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3783083

. . .

The occupation can be ended with an announcement by Congressional leaders that there will be no more funding. Any proposal to fund it can be blocked by 41 senators, or by one if his name is Reid.

Bush has plenty of money for withdrawal (an understatement so dramatic it feels dishonest) and could be given more for that exclusive purpose (if Congress insisted). When your television tells you that the Democrats need 60 or 67 senators in order to end the occupation, your television is lying to you.

"are you living on an island? do you think rethugs would let it go? I know supporting our troops is more than funding this god awful war! but godamn Do you really WANT to give the rethugs the misnomer that we arent funding and thus not supporting them? you have to be kidding me as to your belief in the American publics perceptions. Jesus goddamn are you that obstinate? Average joe voter would think just that, cutting off the funds IS NOT SUPPORTING our troops."

http://www.democrats.com/harry-reid-admits-he-could-block-iraq-funds-but-he-wont

Reid Admits He COULD Block Iraq Funds - But He WON'T
Submitted by Bob Fertik on October 30, 2007 - 2:16pm.

On Friday, Ed Schultz challenged Harry Reid's bogus excuse that Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate to end the war.

Mega-kudos to Schultz for getting Reid to admit that he could - even single-handedly - keep the Iraq funding bill off the floor and thereby end the war, even without 60 votes. So why won't he?

. . .

Reid could get the result he wants by using his power as Majority Leader to block all funding for Iraq. Then when Bush gets concerned, Reid can persuade Bush to agree to the compromise he describes above.

Of course Bush could refuse to compromise, in which case Bush would have to steal money from other accounts to keep the occupation going on his terms. And then Democrats would have one more reason to impeach him - and they would have the support of 73% of America.

So Harry, if you want to negotiate with Bush, start by blocking all funds - and make Bush compromise to meet your terms.

It's called Hardball - and it's what we expect of anyone who wants to call himself a Democratic Leader.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/kucinich-unveils-comprehensive-exit-plan-to-bring-troops-home,-stabilize-iraq/

Kucinich unveils comprehensive exit plan to bring troops home, stabilize Iraq

Dennis J Kucinich, Monday, January 8, 2007, New York City

In November of 2006, after an October upsurge in violence in Iraq, the American people moved decisively to reject Republican rule, principally because of the conduct of the war. Democratic leaders well understand we regained control of the Congress because of the situation in Iraq. However, two months later, the Congress is still searching for a plan around which it can unite to hasten the end of US involvement in Iraq and the return home of 140,000 US troops.


There is a compelling need for a new direction in Iraq, one that recognizes the plight of the people of Iraq, the false and illegal basis of the United States war against Iraq, the realities on the ground which make a military resolution of the conflict unrealistic and the urgent responsibility of the United States, which caused the chaos, to use the process of diplomacy and international law to achieve stability in Iraq, a process which will establish peace and stability in Iraq allow our troops to return home with dignity.


The Administration is preparing to escalate the conflict. They intend to increase troop numbers to unprecedented levels, without establishing an ending date for the so called troop surge. By definition, this escalation means a continuation of the occupation, more troop and civilian casualties, more anger toward the US, more support for the insurgency, more instability in Iraq and in the region, and prolonged civil war at a time when there is a general agreement in the world community that the solution in Iraq must be political not military. Iraq is now a training ground for insurgents who practice against our troops.


What is needed is a comprehensive political process. And the decision is not President Bush's alone to make.


Congress, as a coequal branch of government has a responsibility to assist in the initiation of this process. Congress, under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution has the war-making power. Congress appropriates funds for the war. Congress does not dispense with its obligation to the American people simply by opposing a troop surge in Iraq.

. . .