Should Congress fund a troop surge in Iraq?

i'm fine with it as is

John Edwards, against the surge in troops has come out to not fund Bush's new plan.
Joe Biden, against the surge in troops has said he won't block funding for the plan.

We can tweak it to something like...

Should Congress block funding for Bush's plan to increase troop level?

I disagree with viz here. Plenty of policitians, if not regular people, are perfectly willing to say they're against more troops in Iraq but won't go so far as to pull the funding out from under a surge. That's the debate that's happening right now. We should get this up quickly and start researching. I think it's good to go, though I wonder if "troop surge" is too buzz-wordy. Maybe "an increase in troop levels" or something like that. Maybe it's fine as is.

I agree with the format of the question. Direct and to the point.

I don't get it. We already have an issue, "Should the U.S. deploy more troops to Iraq?" It's conceivable that some people would say yes, but don't fund it, or no, but I'd vote to fund it anyway, but I doubt that parsing the distinction between "deploy" and "fund" is worth the confusion.

Here's the problem with issue proliferation. It takes a lot of work to post all known public figures on both versions of the issue. And even then, some of the pf's will be posted on one issue and not the other, so that there are some conspicuous gaps, and the appearance of "no position" when it only means, "we didn't bother to follow through on all the permutations of the issue." Therefore, there should be a high standard before approving largely overlapping issues. 

Reasonable people may disagree, but, as I said, I don't see the need on this one.

i think this issue is ready to go

issue prior to revisions:

Great.  Absolutely

i'm wondering if it should be:

Should Congress fund a troop surge in Iraq?  i think the issue is going to surround funding the surge, not general funding of the war itself.