May 22 2007
Apparently, Principle is Changeable
WASHINGTON - In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.
While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.
Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party‘s rank and file later in the day.
You know what the worst part of this is? A timeline is the right way to go. It forces us to start making plans to leave, and forces the Iraqis to stick up for themselves. It gets our soldiers home, and stops the money suck that is the mismanaged Iraq war. All in all, Democrats stood up, for once.
Well, now they’ve rolled right back over. They got pressured into changing tunes, and proceeded to give up when their “patriotism” was called into question. Apparently letting troops root in a desert is much more patriotic than doing whatever you can to bring them home.
So the next time a Democrat either lectures you about not standing up against the war, or berates the President for stubbornly “staying the course,” have a good laugh at them because they’re most likely as responsible; particularly if they voted for this bill.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
I completely disagree with your assessment of the war - “troops rotting in the desert”. (How come those that say the best way to support the troops is “doing whatever you can to bring them home” never advocate asking the troops what they think? As a military brat I’d be willing to bet that a very large majority would probably say despite the risks they believe they are making progress and doing good work. But back to my main point…) However, I don’t see a problem with a timeline. The problem I see is making it public so that those we are fighting know. We don’t share other strategic plans with the enemy - why the date we’re leaving? What the politicians need to do is sit down and come up with an acceptable time table, then agree to keep it secret. Yes, doing that would necessitate the democrats looking bad to the extreme part of their base. But if they really believe their talk about doing whatever it takes to bring the troops home that should include taking a political hit.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 am
I must’ve been out of the loop for too long, man. When did you reverse your stance on this?
Simply broadcasting a timetable for withdrawal to the enemy is just plain poor war strategy. The best compromise in this situation is to outline time-dependent benchmarks that provide plans of action on both positive and negative measurements. Withdraw troops based on progression or regression of specific timed goals, allowing exemptions to safeguard sabotage.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 am
James: I think the war has been poorly managed and I don’t think troops are capable of speaking openly and honestly about how they feel. A large majority probably would be okay with staying there for quite awhile. Doesn’t make it right, and since we don’t ask a large majority of troops what they want to do when we go, it’s stupid to ask what they want to do when it’s time to let the Iraqis fend for themselves.
Secondly, nothing says the timeline has to be public. Bush is against any kind of timeline or any tangible measurement of achievement in Iraq. That’s the problem. If the Dems came to him with that, he’d still veto it, I guarantee it, which is why it was removed altogether.
Chet: I didn’t change my stance on the war. I hate the way it’s being managed. It feels like we’re throwing money into a pit that’s not progressing.
Secondly, your compromise is great, but again, I don’t see Bush agreeing to it. There’s no “leave” in his plan and he refuses to entertain anything of the sort. I have a real problem with that.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Bush is as against the time table as the democrats are in imposing one on him. Which means not much! I believe Bush would be willing to compromise on a time table if it were kept an absolute secret. He’d love to have this thing appear to be cleaned up on his watch. The problem is he knows it can’t be broadcast to the enemy. I just don’t know that the democrats really want the troops out enough to not get public credit for pushing a time table. Stupid politics on both sides. But Bush is more correct in not accepting a time table if it means making it public.