How can cutting off the funding of the Iraq War NOT be seen as supporting our troops? Do we assume that if the war funding is cut, the troops will be left there with no bullets and no bread. Or will that force us to bring them home. Of course the latter is the case.
Imagine the commander saying to the troops - congress has cut off the funds, so... unfortunately we’re all going to have to go home. And the troops responding - oh, no, not back home to my family; I want to stay here and die for Saudi Arabia or weapons of mass destruction or nation building or Al Queida or or or.
To say to our troops - we support you staying in Iraq and dying for nothing - is totally stupid. How could anyone be that stupid. The troops never decided that Iraq was worth dying for, that was BushCheneyRice. Funding the war only supports BushCheneyRice, not the troops who have no say whatsoever in where they are sent or what they are ordered to do.
A vote for the war is a vote for Bush. A vote against the war is the only possible way to support the troops. If Iraq is a mess when we leave, then that’s a lesson learned - don’t start needless wars. Let me clarify that - don’t start needless wars. Russia tried that in Afghanistan, we funded and equipped the resistance. Now Iran is doing that to us. It was right when we did it; wrong when they do it.
If Iraqi stability is in the interest of Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Israel, etc, then let them supply the troops and the money to stabilize Iraq. Fuck the war and bring our brothers home!