| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Surrender Date: October 1 |
| 2007-04-26 |
| After lots of hard work getting the spin just right, a House-Senate conference committee has cobbled together a $124 billion war-funding bill for President Bush to veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made sure the bill, which is expected to pass the House and Senate today, included all of the pork and other essentials for Democratic Party constituencies. But when it came to the 150,000 U.S. troops now fighting in Iraq, lawmakers included enough poison-pill language to ensure a presidential veto -- which will in turn delay much-needed support for military operations in Iraq. The Iraq portions of the bill serve to illustrate why the Framers did not give the legislative branch primary authority to conduct foreign policy. Under the legislation, American troops will begin pulling out by July 1 if the elected Iraqi government fails to meet a series of congressional demands, which include reducing sectarian violence -- meaning, in effect, that if al Qaeda wants to speed up an American troop pullout, it might want to bomb more Shi'ite mosques -- guaranteeing that sectarian violence would worsen. Other demands include enactment of a law to share oil revenue. Desirable as this is, it is irrelevant if security does not exist in Iraq, and the U.S. military remains the only thing standing in the way of a total collapse of the government. But the bill goes on to mandate that even if the Iraqis meet all of Washington's demands, the troops will start to leave Iraq Oct. 1, with a goal of bringing most of them home by next April. One might ask: What happens if the terrorist insurgents and militias haven't decided to go out of business by that time? In Congress's fantasy world, none of that matters. This legislation wasn't put together with the goal of defeating jihadists on the battlefield. Quite the contrary: With Republican support negligible, it was crafted to ensure the broadest possible coalition of Democrats would vote for a surrender bill. To satisfy the MoveOn.org types, particularly in the House, the bill starts the pullout as early as nine and a half weeks from now. In an effort to provide political cover for House "Blue Dogs" from more conservative districts who want to vote with Mrs. Pelosi, it contains troop-withdrawal language that sets a "goal" for pulling out rather than a deadline. The Democrats' lack of interest in the real-world impact of their legislation is reflected in their shabby treatment of the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. Last week, House Democratic leaders initially declined Gen. Petraeus' invitation to brief members, reversing themselves only after coming under fire from Republicans. In a CNN interview that aired Monday, Mr. Reid appeared to question whether Gen. Petraeus is being truthful when saying that success is achievable in Iraq. After all, Harry knows the war is lost, so the Genral must be a liar - or maybe just stupid? And by tying funding for the war to a surrender bill that the president will veto, the Democrats are showing studied contempt for our troops in the field. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #6 Don't worry, Harry. Daschle probably thought he had that seat for life too... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-04-26 20:21 |
| #5 Are there any Military Experts that believe a simple, arbitrary withdrawl date of coalition troops from Iraq will result in anything less then a blood-bath? My research says not very many. Matter of fact, most seem to predict a spiral of regional conflicts. Many envision a series of humanitarian crisis, large scale suffering, cats living with dogs. You know, real Biblical shit. I just wonder how many of those that sided with the Democratic leadership will be able to lay their heads on a pillow and convince themselves...It was all Bush's fault. |
| Posted by: Grampaw Chasing 2007-04-26 20:00 |
| #4 This is why Rome fell. The ruling class and the senators were too busy enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. Traitors, every one of 'em that voted for this bill. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-04-26 11:29 |
| #3 George, veto the SOBn bill before the ink is dry. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-04-26 10:31 |
| #2 Many Japanese civilians did more or less exactly this at Saipan (to my mind not a bug but a feature): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saipan Though in those days the phenomenon - in so far as it was reported - was regarded with disgust and as a prime example of what we had to defend ourselves against. Now it is celebrated by the fat, creeping traitors of Hollywood and the Ivy League. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-04-26 10:21 |
| #1 The Democrats are telling the world's savages if they can kill enough of themselves, the US congress will give them a reprieve until they can muster another atrocity on US soil, next time most likely with nukes. Can you imagine in the Pacific theater, Japanese soldiers throwing their women off cliffs then demanding the Marines surrender or they will throw the babies off too? It's almost like reverse psychology where Bugs dares Daffy to drink the nitroglycerin and swallow a match. But I fear the best congress money can buy does not have the street smarts of a cartoon rabbit. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-04-26 09:03 |