The situation has moved beyond posturing and need to take action to force a clear, meaningful decision for each and every Senator.

For the record, Talex has never understood the defunding AFTER  a date certain does not defund the troops in the field. It force redeployment from the field.

SEN. FEINGOLD:  Well, I think we will.  This has been a slow, very painful process.  Sometimes I've been very pleased with the progress we've made, sometimes I'm not.  But I'll tell you, what happened this week, a majority of the United States Senate, including four Republicans, voted for a binding deadline to end the war by the early part of next year.  And, you know, this is a proposal that I made a long time ago which, at the time, people thought was sort of extreme.  Now it is a mainstream view.  We need to do more, but the unity that the Democrats are showing is causing more Republicans to come on board, which I think will lead to our being able to pass something in the, in the not-too-distant future.
MR. RUSSERT:  This fall?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  I believe so.  I'm hoping that can happen, either in the Department of Defense authorization bill.  I also think we have to look, as Senator Reid and I have talked about, at using the power of the purse, our ability to cut off the funding after the troops are safely redeployed, as a way to actually enforce this kind of a binding deadline.

BTW MT - when you start talking about typos - it is a sure sign that you really have nothing to say about what I posted. So there is your transcript. Your last hope that I am wrong. Read 'em and weep. I'm not wrong. Oh and you can see the show on video on the main MTP page. If you do I suggest you get a box of tissues.

Feingold does not agree with you.

-----------------------------

But I have to ask, are you actually claiming Feingold agrees with you on defunding?

Well the main point is that he does not agree with you on defunding isn't it?

As for agreeing with me he agrees that a redeployment bill must come first. But you know I made that clear in my post so quit trying to avoid the obvious - that his 'framework' is totally different than what you have been suggesting and clinging to all this time.

Your idea is now DOA according to Feingold. He has made clear he does not support your silly idea.

Feingold mentions defunding after redeployment. That has always been a given really. Because if we redeploy and change the mission we are effectively defunding because there is nothing to fund - other than a new mission under another authorization bill.

-------------------------

MT:
For the record, Talex has never understood the defunding AFTER  a date certain does not defund the troops in the field. It force redeployment from the field.

As for the quotes, they may reflect what Talex heard, but the interpretationhe places on the words demonstrates he never has understood the idea of defunding, or possibly, he has chosen to be false about it.

What a joke. What an crock of BS.You know I have dissected your plan plenty of times and showed it wouldn't work and you have NEVER RESPONDED. Because you can't!!!!

If you funded up to a date certain and told Bush to use the money to bring the troops home one of two things would happen.

First of all that bill in the past would never have passed in the Senate and you know it. And if it did it would have needed to with a VPM which you don't think is possible. So that won't work.

Now the backup excuse to that rebuttal is that you just don't pass a bill. Well if you do that then you are defunding the troops because Bush would use any remaining monies to prosecute his war and then come back and ask for more. And if you didn't give it to him you would be leaving the troops hanging. Sure the congress could appropiate funds to bring them home BUT -  we all know that if the Dems tried defunding without a bill that the Repubs would never let a bill to fund the withdrawal of the troops even make it to a vote because they could filibuster it. By doing that they force us to further fund. So the idea of no bill won't work either.

Boom - you are out of options.

You may be able to fool MT, or andgarden, or Edger but you can fool no one who can reason or will reason.

You just cannot provide a plan on how you would defund without leaving the troops hanging. At least not if you take into consideration the two scenarios I outlined above. But you have never acknowledged those two scenarios because you know they kill your idea so you pretend they do not exist. But exist they do. Just because you don't acknowledge them does not make them untrue. They are true but you prefer to live in LaLa land because you cling to a fantasy.

A bill to end the war by defunding will not pass (even Feingold would not vote for that as he made clear today) and if you don't send up a bill at all then Bush spends what he does have and then comes back and says you are putting the troops in harms way - and he would be right.