Debunking the Myths about "Cutting Funding" for the War

The key talking point of supporters of indefinitely continuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq boils down to this: there is nothing Congress can do to compel the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq except "cut the funding," and cutting the funding would hurt the troops.

So far this argument has been quite effective at cowing the leadership in Congress; indeed, until now the leadership has mostly echoed this argument.

It's not surprising: this argument has not been seriously challenged in the media, and in fact, according to recent polls, it's partly accepted by a majority of the public. Recent polls indicate that a majority wants Congress to take action to bring the troops home within a year, but a majority also opposes "cutting the funding." Of course this is a chicken-and-egg situation: the media take cues from the leadership of the parties, the party leaderships take cues from the media, and the public takes cues from the parties and the media.Full Story:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot-and-robert-naiman/debunking-the-myths-about_b_41602.html

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All while screaming about how "no single soldier's life was worth" all the mess in fill-in-the-blank that "Clinton got us into" ...

negatively impacting the troops. It is a myth. Cutting the funding of a war of choice has nothing to do with continuing the financial support of the military - those are two separate things. The "leadership" who is forwarding that lie are doing so with purpose...

This is what the bu$h regime is trying desperately to protect.