No More $ for War = End of War. Keeping Troops at War Without Any $ = Unsupportive/War Crime

The Bush administrations latest response to the Democrats' threat of cutting off funding for the war is essentially this: "see! They don't support the troops. They would leave troops on the battlefield without ammo and armor and properly maintained vehicles."

"Um... no, YOU would leave them there.
We assumed that no more resources for war would bring an end to it. We didn't think you'd actually be evil enough to continue keep them there anyway."

Never the less, it seems to be working, the Democrats ARE afraid to cut off funds for the war because they are afraid it will make them look unsupportive.

All I have to say is: FOR THE MILITARY TO CONTINUE TO USE THE TROOPS WHEN THEY KNOWINGLY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PROTECT THEM, IS THE ONLY THING THAT'S UNSUPPORTIVE.


Any time a Republican says that the Democrats don't support the troops because they cut off funds to them while in theater, the answer, assuming one day they DO cut off funds, is this:

We gave plently of notice before the funds were going to run out, it was your decision to keep the troops at war despite that fiscal reality. It is YOU who don't support the troops.

If you are gambling in Vegas and losing repeatedly, and your last stop at the ATM finds that you're overdrawn and it won't dispense any more cash, yet you continue to gamble anyway, is Bank of America not being supportive of you? Who's in the wrong here, the bank, or the compulsive loser?