The lame GOP "Well, why don't the Dems totally cut the funding?" response

It has become a common refrain among conservatives to say "Well, if the Democrats really stand behind their convictions then why don't they cut off the war funding all together?" The answer is obvious . . . because they care about the troops and don't want to cut off their supplies. And they do care about having an orderly re-deployment that puts troops in Kurdistan & Kuwait to keep a watchful eye on things.

So many of these lame Democrats need to turn that "if you really stand behind your convictions" logic on the GOP . . . ask "If the GOP thinks this war is so incredibly important, then why don't they initiate a draft, raise taxes to cover the war costs, and send the 500,000 troops needed in Iraq to actually do the job?" This "surge" (what a lie that term is) is a half-assed escalation consisting of a few more troops. All it amounts to is a few more hammers to play "whack-a-mole" with. The moles will simply pop up in different locations. The violence will just move out of Baghdad and plague other areas.

The re-deployment versus surge debate just goes back to John Murtha's original thinking. Murtha tried to get the administration to try to take the war more seriously. However, when it was clear that they were not going to allocate the full amount of resources necessary, he realized that it was better to re-deploy out.