Watch CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interview Chris Dodd Tuesday.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd urged Congress on Wednesday to stop funding combat missions in Iraq and use the billions in savings to rebuild the nation's military.
The Connecticut senator said he will introduce an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would remedy the situation.
"Millions of dollars a week are being squandered in Iraq ... while our nation's military is calling out for additional resources to repair the damage caused by the administration's policies," Dodd said.
His proposal came as the Senate convened for what its Democratic leaders said would be an all-night debate on the war in advance of a hoped-for vote on another amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. If approved, U.S. combat forces would return home by April 30.
Senate Majority Leader Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he hopes the amendment introduced by him and Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island can go to the chamber's floor for a vote on Thursday.
However, the chances of that happening are slim.
It is about time. Chris Dodd may not be a front runner for the presidential bid but he is showing some integrity and guts asking for the Congress to stop fund this insane war. The Congress should have acted upon this long ago.
But our troops need those new armored vehicles Chris! Time is of the upmost importants. Why are you blaming Bush for not being fully prepared while trying to cut his funding? Is this your idea of supporting our troops??
This is one of the worst jokes I have heard about.
If the public dose not wake up to what the Dems are doing then we are in big trouble in this country. How can we trust a Demecrat with our securty in this country. If we wave a white flag then they will follow us home.
I AM FEED UP WITH THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE. WE NEED SOME ONE WITH BACK BONE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS WRIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND NOT THE PARTY.
Since Bush does not put the Iraq War in the Federal Budget it requires special funding.
Cut-off the funding, that means the war is over.
Meanwhile each day this war continues the deeper we go into debt and the futher our forces get depleted.
I just find it incredible that after being in Iraq for 6 years, there is still no bipartisian resolution to this debacle. The loyalty by the few Republican senators still supporting bush on this, is amazing to say the least! I suppose they must believe that their political loyalty will somehow be rewarded someway down the road?
In the meantime, we have a new videotape from Bin laden, showing him smirking, and very much alive and well. Some intelligence annalists believe he is still commanding Al Qaeda forces in the field, or at least still involved in their training, or planning the next sensational attack against the west. Perhaps Bin Laden is involved in all three, or even more terror operations to God knows what extent? Well, enough on the real enemy, we missed the oppertunity to take him down, and his entire terrorist network. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are regrouping inside Pakistan, and other remote parts of Afghanistan. The latest intelligence reports on this, are not manufactured, but indeed very real!
Oh, but, that's right Mr. President in regard to Saddam, yea, YOU GOT HIM!!
As to Iran now being involved in Iraq, why should that be surprising to anyone? Are we going to stay there so long as to see Syria, Turkey, Jordon, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia get involved also? If that's the case Mr. President, why not just plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely?!
Sen. Dodd is correct.
The Bush War is breaking the military. There aren't enough military left to fight this war and man homeland security at the same time.
Bush is making decisions based on his legacy. Dodd is making decisions in the best interests of American Security and Military Survival to achieve the same.
Look at the Billions Bush injected into Iraq to rebuild while striping American Military and causing burn out on the military members he has.
We stop funding our troops, then what Sen. Dodd? What do we do then? A one sentence answer to a complex question like "what do we do in Iraq" can often be dismissed with a one sentence rebutal. What do we do next? When Iraq is falling apart, the region goes crazy, when you concentrate all US soldiers in one spot to begin pulling them out when security is still in question, and while countries to the North and East are waiting for us to leave. What's next. I'm all for having a real discussion about how to end this war and bring our troops home. I just do not think the discussion should be over with something that could fit on a bumper sticker. A campaign bumper sticker at that.
I agree that time is of the "upmost importants", so to speak. But I remember a defense spending bill coming across Bush's desk and he VETOED it. You want to talk about supporting the troops? Our Congress passed a bill that WOULD support our troops, and our President said "no thanks."
Stop any additional funds for the war and the troops come home, PERIOD. There's already 800B in the pipeline, they don't NEED any more money to get home. Get out of there now. The region is already in chaos, leaving isn't going to cause that to increase. And it just might give them reason to stop killing American troops and work out their differences politically. If you believe that will never happen, then what's the point in staying? All things being equal, it'd be better for less American kids to be getting slaughtered and maimed for nothing.
Kevin, I remember that bill. That was the one where Murtha pork barrelled more money for his district. It had tons more money than was requested going to fund items that were not going to be used in Iraq, and had an artificial time table where bureaucrats were telling generals how to fight. I remember that bill. I remembered when Democrats caved too. If we are going to talk about supporting our troops, why do not listen to our troops? Polls of our troop overwhelmingly show that they believe that they should be there in Iraq. If you ask them individually if they want to go home, surely they say yes. But, they will also say that they believe in the mission. I just wish those who say "support the troops" truely believed in them. Instead, they throw their hands up in the are in retreat, claim a failure, have a good cry, forget any obligations we have to the Iraqi people, fail to recognize how such a failure will damage the entire region of the Middle East, and tend not to account of how dangerous it might be to quickly pull troops out of Iraq. When I see a Democratic bill that address all those issues, then we can make some progress here while our troops are making progess in Iraq every day.
This debate is way too late. This all should have occured before we invaded Iraq. Ron Paul is the only candidate running that voted against the invasion. He wants to repeal the Patriot Act to restore our liberties.
Vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries, there is hope for America.
Soldiers aren't policy makers. They are trained (or "brainwashed", if you prefer) to ALWAYS "believe in the mission." It isn't a soldier's job to question his orders, and right now their orders are to fight the insurgents. It's the Congress' job to debate that policy, and it is our job as constituents to voice our opinions to those representatives.
Arguing that Democratic legislation for the removal of troops is "unsupportive of the troops" is ignorant, blatant GOP-style pathos, and unpatriotic.
p.s. CNN stop removing my posts about your erros.
How is this new business? Dennis Kucinich has been saying this for a year and a half now.
Kevin, it is clear where you stand now. What does it matter that our "brain washed" troops believe that we should continue making progress? What does it matter what the individuals who will most likely be sent back to that region to clean-up the mess that any immediate withdrawal will generate have to think? What does it matter if there is another genocide in the world? What does it matter that by all account from the National Intelligence Reports or from the mouths of al Qaeda’s leaders themselves that say that Iraq is the primary battle ground in the war on terror? What does all that matter? Because the people who live thousands of miles back home, who haven't had to face a terrorist attack in 6 six years (isn't that surprising, since we started fighting them...) that the men and women who are fighting for our freedom should just come home. Of course, because those who would want to kill Americans would never follow us back to states. Oh...wait...hmmm they would. In fact, they did before we were in Iraq. They did it before we were in Afghanistan. They did it before Bush was president. But what do the joint chiefs and generals know, Kevin, from Fenwick Island, DE, said it would all be ok.
The Iraq war will get worse as days go by, and George Bush and the Republican candidates will be down the tubes during the general election day. The democrats should time it so that there will be a clean sweep for democrats across the country.