So?

Give President Bush 100 billion dollars to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for the rest of 2008 and beyond 13.4%

Give President Bush 170 billion dollars to keep U.S. troops in Iraq in 2009 and beyond 9.8%

Give President Bush 50 billion dollars to bring U.S. troops safely home within 6 Months 16.8%

*sigh* What it would be to live in a country where you can bandy around the word "billion" like that...

Ug. If only the questions weren't always so stupid!
It really makes no sense to combine two ideas into the same question this way.

The question of "give $x billions" is within Congress' powers; the question of "to do x with the troops" isn't. So you're going to get meaningless results.

Why not,

"Should Congress

1) Give Bush $100B to pursue Iraq war aims as he sees fit, realizing of course this means the troops aren't coming home anytime soon?

2) Give Bush $170B to pursue Iraq war aims as he sees fit, realizing of course this means the troops aren't coming home anytime soon?

3) Give Bush $50B to pursue Iraq war aims as he sees fit, realizing of course this means the troops aren't coming home anytime soon?

4) Tell Bush there is no more money coming, so if he wants the troops alive, he'd better get 'em home ASAP -- realizing of course that Bush will say Congress is endangering the troops?"

The Best Part is how little time there is now until we entirely replace one of the agents in the question. Bets on how little difference it will make???

where the hell does congress get the money anyway? the question makes it sound like the congress just has the money lying around in their desks and just need to hand it over when the Bush team comes to make a withdrawl..

"Should congress give "x" billions to Bush.." needs to be rephrased as "should the american taxpayers agree to finance the Bush wars with "x" billions.."

I bet the percentage that say yes will go to nil

oh, the money spent so far is a sunk cost. At this point it is overwhelmingly in US national interest to stay put. And why do you losers care anyway, you are all doubtlessly in the 15% or so bracket, paying some couple grand a year in federal taxes. It is people like me that should get to vote on this because it those of us in the 35% bracket that pay for givernment, not you jerk-offs. You pay a token sum, you hence only get a token voice.

Eh, meanwhile I am enjoying some extensive travels to some new places, not so easy for me since I know most of the world quite well, but this time of year the Latvian seacoast is quite lovely.

STUBBY!!! Yer back from the basement at Lubyanka. Did YOU get Putin to call Nan(1-202-225-0100)? I notice YOU haven't mentioned any girls, did they "injure" YOU during YOUR stay?

I got MY bellyful of war during the last "Great Adventure" and now it seems (according to this poll) half the country is ready to leave the "table" on this present feast. "Pottery Barn Rules", rather EXPENSIVE piece OUR "bull in the china shop" has stomped on. (without IMPEACHMENT nobody is going anywhere, not even with a Dem Administration and Dem Congress)

What the fuck, def? The whole point of sunk costs is that they're gone, and you should just think of them as water under the bridge. Not "Well, I already spent that money, so I might as well keep tossing dollars downstream." Forget your sunk costs - do you want to be spending more money? If no, then get the fuck out. Either way, that money isn't coming back.

Regarding "the american taxpayer" funding this, that might be true in the long-term, but in the short term it's foreign governments and private investors who are financing this thing.

saurabh IS RIGHT, Stubby. Don't give those Sons of Bitches a nickle, not a frigging penny, they're just WASTEING YOUR MONEY.

saurabh: NO TAXES= no line of credit, nowhere.

Don, you're simply mistaken. It's well within the Congress' power to decline to fund occupation, to fully fund withdrawal -- and/or to fund continued occupation with specific conditions (such as withdrawal of xK troops within x months, etc.)

what I'd like to know is what people think about the likelihood that McC, or HRC or Obama are to get troops out of Iraq. Also, here's a question I'd like to see pollsters ask just of respondents who said they wanted the US out of iraq and voted for HRC or Obama in the primaries:

Q:why were you too stupid to vote to vote for Kucinich or Gravel, or at least Richardson?

a. I didn't want to waste my vote. Cause that's bad.

b.the liberal media told me not to, and they know what's best for me.

c. I don't know.

d.I wanted to vote in an historic election for a black guy or a broad.

e. I guess I'm just bitter.

Jonathan Versen: I got NO idea about the list as I'm NOT a Dem, but YOU are ABSOLUTELY correct about these candidates. None will pull the troops home. Its simply NOT in the Democratic agenda or the Republican agenda. Thus the need for THE INTERNET PARTY, to represent THE PEOPLE'S WILL as over half the country (more than 50%, a MAJORITY) want the troops home. I want the troops home, YOU want the troops home, maybe as much as 70% of OUR friends, neighbors, FELLOW TAXPAYERS, want the troops home, (the Iraqis AND the rest of the world want our troops home), the 2 parties don't.

Judging from "def's" adventures on the Eastern European seaboard and justification for the occupation I think I can already tell where his loyalties lie.

Just in case I need a remind you...

Don't hold your breath. This country won't war for your Zionist terror state forever.

Nell,

But that has never worked. This President (and the others before him) have always kept and exercised the right to break/redefine any such conditions.

Apart from the executive willingly ordering redeployment, only the refusal to appropriate the funds at all will terminate the mission.

If it's "well within the Congress' power" to do otherwise, please show any instance where it's worked out that way.