Quote:
Originally Posted by angryssg
70chip, the only thing that the democrats would end by cutting off the money is the lives of those servicesmembers who would still be stuck over there. Now they would be there without food, and ammunition. So they will continue supporting it financially not because of the political aspect, but because of the threat of iminent danger to American lives without funding.
|
I disagree. No money no war. The troops would have to come home. No President could leave soldiers in the field without food. The Pentagon would revolt.
The only problem they have in terms of this plan to freeze the status quo and get a Dem President is Hillary. She is so apalling (a-pauli-ing, not a-peel-ing) that even with Bush in the low 30s and the mainstream press doing all they can, and Iraq etc, she could still lose. They may need to engineer some sort of 3rd party candidacy based around immigration, for example, so she can win with,say, 43% of the vote. I can't see her breaking 50.
And if she does win you can count on her keeping at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for most of her first term. Anyone who thinks she will pull out hasn't been paying attention. She would love the idea of flying into Bagdhad to visit the troops. Great photo-op. Florence of Arabia. I pity the anti-war types. They have given the Democrats power and the Democrats have thanked them by taking a great big dump on their front porch. Oh that stinks.