JuanCarlos
New member
Pay attention. The legislation IS NOT a resolution to stop funding, it IS NOT a de-authorization, it IS NOT a budget dispute with the military. It IS appropriations with caveat of DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP schedule for troop withdraw despite General Petraeus ALREADY having given a schedule for troop withdraw. THAT was voted yea upon. Another version that DIDN'T have troop withdraw was voted NAY.
Actually, it is a resolution to make funding conditional. So in other words, it is a resolution to stop funding for a war with no clear exit timetable, and yet to continue funding a war with an exit timetable.
Also, Petraeus has not, to my knowledge, given any real schedule for troop withdrawal aside from the ending of the "surge." Which is, from what I can tell, different than what this resolution requires.
The dollars aren't the issue. The power to stop funding is ALWAYS an option but has not yet been exercised. The issue is withdrawing the force PREMATURELY thereby undermining the successes thus far realized. Should Generals or Senators execute a war?
Either, really. If the people decide they want the war ended, then the Senators [EDIT: or Congress in general, before we get into a pedantic argument about who the Senate represents] should be able to end it. And again, this resolution would end funding for a war with no clear exit timetable.
You seem to think that the Congress should only have two black-or-white options: fund it or don't. Apparently they do in fact have a third option, which is to fund it conditionally. The administration and his Generals then have the option to continue without funding if (and as) they so choose, or end the war as Congress requires and get the funding they need until then.