Given that their majority is much too slim to override a presidential veto, they are forced into the unenviable position of considering whether to hand over the funds to enbale President Bush to continue his war, despite the fact that nearly every metric out there tells us that things continue to head in the wrong direction, or be seen as depriving our soldiers the tools to fight and protect themselves. More than just a bumper-sticker philosophy, "supporting the troops" is a sticky issue indeed. There are some 160,000 of our own men and women on the ground in Iraq. To date nearly 3,500 have died, and over 26,000 have been wounded in what was supposed to have been a low-casualty, pay-for-itself repeat of the first Persian Gulf War. Here's Joe Biden:
"I believe as long as we have troops in the front line, we're going to have to protect them. We're going to have to fund them."Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not signaled how they will vote. Chris Dodd will go against the funding bill. John Edwards is shouting on the sidelines for everyone to stand firm and just say no. What makes this moment doubly difficult is the sense that President Bush is simply running out the clock.
He's going to stick to his guns no matter what. His trademark stubbornness will forever be a banner headline from his tenure, and his bullheadedness in Iraq has given rise to a dizzying succession of paradoxes. He led us to believe our invasion was an inextricable part of the fight against terrorism. Quickly, we learned (some of us, anyway) that this wasn't the case. But now, as a result of the lawlessness that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein, we have indeed turned Iraq into a haven for al-Qaeda. While this latter fact is often pointed to as reason for why we cannot switch course and re-deploy our forces, I would submit that Pakistan (among other places) is also a haven for al-Qaeda, that at this very moment there are operatives in that country who are plotting to do horrific things on U.S. soil, and yet we feel no similar imperative to plunk down 160,000 troops within Pakistan's borders.
But what is real support for our troops? Of course, more body armor helps. More trucks and weapons, too, and all that is required to adequately fight an multi-faceted insurgency. No doubt, if you're a soldier and you have to be "in theater," you want the best equipment available. Then again, what of the overal situation on the ground? What has four-plus years of occupation brought us? Well, the last six months have seen the highest death rates for U.S. soldiers since the start of the war. Another metric? For the first 23 days of May, 321 unidentified corpses have turned up in Baghdad. That number is as high as all the bodies found in January, the month the surge, which was supposed to quell sectarian killings, began.
What to do then, if you're a Democrat in Congress? Like your Republican colleagues, do you wait and see what September brings? Or do you go all in for symbolism, and damn the consequences of being seen as endangering U.S. soldiers. One thing is clear, you sure could have been dealt better cards.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. It is real simple. Lil John is as big a coward
and candy ass as peanuts Caatta was. BEE BEES for
balls. Old Bugeyes Hill simply doesn't have any.
After what she put up with out of SLICK WILLIE
We would be pulling our pants down for any Tinhorn
Dictater in the world.
Truth Hurts.
JAMES RADFORD at 2:12PM on May 24th 2007
2. This so-called war is confusing enough and now you
adding this. My sister's kid is on his way there and
I'm wondering what he how he will turn out if he comes out alive? That was the same kind of thought
when the Vietman War was going. Can you answer that
and if there is an answer will you be able to answer
it?
Carla Meyer at 3:57PM on May 24th 2007
3. If one looks back only to 2003 we have no business being in Iraq.
In Aug 1990 Saddam needed more money to fund his palaces, military and economy after 8 years of war with Iran. The fall of the Soviet Union led to a sharp drop in the ability of the Soviet military.
Saddam believed the U.S. would not get involved in the Middle East and activate the Islamofascist Mujahideen jhadists that we supported in their fight against the Russians in Afganistan.
Feeling secure with the third largest army in the world and millions of jhadists to oppose any U.S. intervention Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Bush Sr. skillfully pulled together a collation of Arab states, effectively removing the jhadists from the equation. The Arab states, concerned backlash from radical moslems could topple their governments,
had one caveat for Bush Sr. Do not occupy Iraq.
After attempts to get Saddam with bunker busters failed he saw the writing on the wall and surrendered. Saddam agreed to the terms of the Gulf War cease fire and we, for the most part, went home.
Saddam immediately set about testing the limits of what he could get away with, firing missiles at our aircraft in the no fly zone and impeding the weapons inspectors. Bush Sr. on several occasions dropped smart buttons on Saddams forehead to keep him in line and to hold him to the terms of the cease fire.
As soon as Clinton came to office Saddam again tested the waters to see what he could get away with. While Clinton eviscerated the military to fund his domestic spending programs Saddam saw an opportunity and ejected the weapons inspectors.
Clinton defered to the great liberal alter of inaction, the U.N., and Saddam was off the hook.
Saddam then hid behind radical Islam and thumded his nose at 17 U.N. resolutions; the last of which was to disarm or else.
Ronald Reagan would have been criminally negligent
to stand by while Iran and Iraq waged war with WMD's on a scale not seen since WWI, and not want to know who was manufacturing, selling and supplying WMD's to Iran and Iraq. With unprecedented funding, manpower, technology and six years the U.S. would have compiled a long list of WMD's Iran, Iraq, and Libya purchased.
When Libya denounced terrorism and turned in their WMD's we were probably able to test what we believed Libya had against what they turned in. What we learned about the accuracy of this information after 911 was probably scary. Possession is 9/10th's of the law and we have yet to find the WMD's; it is naive to believe he never had them.
To add insult to injury Saddam broke the terms of the cease fire, attempted to assassinate a former President, thumbed his nose at 17 U.N. resolutions and was shopping in Niger. Uranium constitutes nearly 75% of Nigers exports. So there is a 75% chance Saddam was thinking about adding to his arsenal. I agree Bush oversold this with the words "significant quantities" in his 2003 State of the Union address but he did not lie.
Does all this sound like how the world ignored Hilter in the 1930's. Hitler laid out in Mein Kampf
the horror to come. OSB has said many times what he will do and democrats want to play into his hands.
Many claim Bush has made terrorism worse yet Clinton did nothing to antagonize terrorists. They attacked the World Trade center for the FIRST time in 1993. During the Clinton years they attacked us in Saudia Arabia, our embassies in Africa and the the U.S.S. Cole. Clinton delt with terrorism as an international law enforcement issue all the while cutting our military and intell services.
Terrorists plotted and planned to kill Americans for 8 Clinton years. They succeeded many times in the 90's and again in a big way on 911. (Bush had made personnel changes but had yet to pass his own budget. He was working with what Clinton had left him.)
Democrats advocate we pack up and go home, to leave Iraq. But then what?
AQ attacked the Spanish in Madrid and they left Iraq. The Spanish have not been attacked since. Do dems believe if we leave Iraq they will leave us alone too? The Clinton years say otherwise.
Do we leave the billions in oil revenue Saddam used to build the third largest army in the world for AQ to fund terrorism? With that kind of money it should not take them long to figure out how to attack us again.
Iran and Syria know a free thriving democracy next door in Iraq would spell doom for their repressive regimes. They are supporting the terrorists in Iraq.
The world will be a much better place if oil money in Iraq is funding a free democratic Iraq than AQ terrorist weapons.
PETE at 3:19PM on May 24th 2007
4. Let's give George W. Bush the credit he deserves! He got us into a war with Iraq, because Sadam wanted to kill George W.'s daddy when he was President. The poverty rate is at it's highest level from the 200 & some years of this country's history. Sure unemploy-
ment may be at a low level. But, that's because the hard working middle class & poor have to work 2 or more jobs just to get by. The religious right hails George W., as a saint. Also, with our military streached so thin, what do we do if places like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea decides that the United States is trying to take over the world, & declare war on the U.S.? I guess we'll all just have to put our heads between our legs & kiss our asses goodbye! So, Congratulations President George W. Bush! You are now looked upon as the worst President in the history of the United States, and a joke to the rest of the world!!
R.D. BARNES
D. BARNES at 3:35PM on May 24th 2007
5. I believe that the war is lost. Further funding only prolongs the agony and increasess the death of our soldiers and the death of innocent Iraqi civilians. We are in the middle of a civil war. So let us get our troops out of harms way as soon as possible, but we should appropriate enough funds to protect them in the process.
Allan Mohl at 3:41PM on May 24th 2007
6. First off, let us support our troops by giving them an honest country to fight for, for God's sake!It is very clear now that Bush wanted to invade Iraq and plans to continue its occupation long enough to secure the privatization of Iraqi oil for himself and his buddies. He's using our money and our military to act as his security guards while he sets up shop there.It only took how long and how amny of our people dead and wounded for his true purpose there to come out. What a patient man! And
what a deal! Get the American people to pay for and be tormented and distracted by the U.S. military invasion and occupation, while starting up your own private Iraqi oil company and privately pocketting that private Iraqi oil company money! If we can't give our troops an honest country to fight for, then let's protect those troops by bringing them home!
nootaksas at 4:48PM on May 24th 2007
7. I am deeply disappointed by the democrats. We badly need to restore the balance of power within this country, They have let us down, no matter how clearly the people have spoken out about this dreadful mess in Iraq.
Tom Edgar at 4:58PM on May 24th 2007
8. Clinton bombed Iraq into the sand. He destroyed the Republican Guard, not Bush. He destroyed the weapons chaches, not Bush. Anyone who says different is ignorant or just lying.
fibblefester at 4:58PM on May 24th 2007
9. Let's put this in perspective, shall we? How many out there still living have actually been a U.S. President besides GWB? Three. Does anyone actually believe that a former Democratic president would actually support a sitting Republican president? Of course not! They are cheerleaders for their party. I would expect them to criticize the current President, but they have the right, they've been there, done that.
How many people criticizing the President publicly even know him? Have not only met him, but know his mind? You could probably count the number on just a few hands. So unless you have, and you do, it's not appropriate to say that you know his mind or what he's thinking. You don't.
How many people criticizing him actually work for the President, provide him information, and advise him during the decision-making process? Hmmm ... we could probably narrow it down to a few hundred, maybe a few thousand. Even then, you're probably an expert in a specific discipline or field. Now compare that to the population, let's say 300 million. Not really that many, is it.
So I ask you, is it really all that surprising that the President has so many critics who oppose his mind and the decisions he makes? He doesn't have much more time in office, so it really doesn't matter. Let's wait and see who next sits in the hot seat and has to deal with criticism from the peanut gallery. I guarantee you that if a Democrat wins the next election, they will have to many of the same things that the current president is doing. And then you will see the same critics of GWB defending their president because that's what they do. And those of the opposition party will oppose much of what they currently support. Amazing thing, politics.
And for those that throw numbers around to justify their position, try again. Tell you what, while you're throwing out casualty numbers, why don't you add the 15 thousand a year killed by drunk drivers, or the thousands that die every year from domestic disputes or just plain murder. The numbers from Iraq pale in comparison. I'm not even counting those that don't die and are maimed for life.
So when those of you out there who feel compelled to come out publicly and criticize the President about something you know absolutely nothing about, try putting things in perspective, will you? Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but when you jump on the band wagon remember ... you can always fall off too.
jcmcamis at 5:02PM on May 24th 2007
10. I FEEL AS DEMOCRAT.MY VOTE IN NOVEMBER WOULD MAKE ANY DIFERENCE BUT I DID NOT,I THOGHT I WOULD END THIS WAR.WHAT A WASTE OF TIME NOW I KNOW THEY ARE ALL THE SAME.I FEEL I WAS SOLD OUT.
AZGUITAR at 11:29AM on May 25th 2007
11. Azguitar,
I share your disappontment in the democrats. They have let us down, period. The funny rule of the people in power is that we must stay in Iraq until we have as many servicepeople killed as we have lost up to now. Stupid.
Tom Edgar at 5:41PM on May 24th 2007
12. I wanted to wait until the funding bill was signed before I tried to explain what happened. Republicans are gloating and Democrats are taking this loss personally. The poker reference is fair to a point. The President is the President. Right or wrong we are not a "Banana Republic." In America we don't have Congressional Coups. President Bush had every dime he demanded from day one. He presented a false argument that dangled our troops off the ledge like Michael Jackson. Democrats had to blink. Somebody had to be responsible. How do we discipline a problem child? Logic never works. The parents always lose face. The problem child gloats and gets what they want short term. Yes, Democrats are ashamed because we let Bush steal another peice of candy. We can't win due to perspective. America will make the final determination on what price Bush will pay. He's going to take a beating, but we've got other pressing issues. Democrats proved we support the troops. We can't let Bush scream, "Abuse." Perspective will blame us. We learned that logic doesn't work when dealing with tryants or spoiled children. Bush's plan for Iraq is "Ground Hog's Day in September." Petras will raise his head from some bunker and give us the war forcast. With all the ships headed to the region, it looks like at least 2 more years of war or self-destruction. Whichever comes first. Logic wins with time. Bush set the clock until September 11, 2007. We need 17 Republican adults with courage.
Cecil Jones at 6:31PM on May 24th 2007
13. David,
I agree completely with your blog, and when I first heard about the Democrats' compromise with Bush I figured it was the best they could hope for under the circumstances. Really, I think they were able to get much more of a victory out of the compromise than I thought they could, with the minimum wage piece of it to hang their hats on during the next election and at least giving the appearance of holding Bush and the Iraqis accountable for progress over there. I was then shocked and horrified to see how eager the Democratic public-at-large was to tear the party apart over nothing. The Democrats just don't have the votes to force Bush's hand here. They needed to fund the troops for now because they honestly had no choice, and then they'll get right back to pushing "End the War" legislation that will either die in congress or be vetoed by Bush, but there was absolutely no sense committing political suicide just to fight a losing battle to the end. I'm depressed as hell now because I'm fully convinced that the Democrats will never again be able to sustain a majority in Congress or maintain any real power because it's more important for most Democratic voters to be right than to win anything (legislative or electoral). American politics is not simply about doing the right thing, and it never will be. It's about power, strategy, and diplomacy, and the Democratic Party finally has leadership that understands that and knows how to win under those rules, but now they have to deal with a party base that doesn't want to play the game. If Democratic voters want to keep this country in the destructive hands of the Republicans forever just to stand on principle, then fine, you're just as responsible for every dirty awful mess that this country is in as Rove and the rest of them.
Mike at 6:42PM on May 24th 2007
14. AZGUITAR You should feel an extra amount of disappointment about the Democrats not holding out for withdrawal of the troop from Iraq. In fact, they folded like an Arabian tent because they received plenty of "earmark funds" for doing so. Let's face it both parties run on money and not principle. Sad, but true
Mike S. at 8:52PM on May 24th 2007
15. The Dems are abuncch of gutless b-------. I'm movin to Canada.
Larry Hauck at 9:38PM on May 24th 2007