The war is not over
But we may quit anyway.
Congratulations to all you that voted for Democrats in the last election. You sure won. But what did you get? I'll tell you.
The Democrats (Senate and House) have added a troop withdrawal timetable to the spending bill that includes funds for the war (what it was supposed to be for before the pork).
Bush has vowed to veto it.
Here is how things have played out:
The senate has tried, and failed, to pass a non-binding resolution for troop withdrawal several times.
It does not matter if it passes. It never did. What it does is show President Bush the power he no longer has. It was more of a statement saying "you can't stop us... not enough votes. :-P ". The witch hunt for Scooter Libby and Carl Rove and the growing controversy over USAG Alberto Gonzales firing eight U.S. attorneys is another way for the Dems to say "join us or you are next". This also gives Bush yet another black eye and erodes public support for his policies. Congerssional member and Senators will then move toward the liberal side because the constituency will direct them to.
Bush has vowed to veto any appropriations bill that applies a withdrawal time line to the troops in Iraq. That means that the bill, with withdrawal, will get passed (narrowly, but still passed).
Bush will veto.
The Dems will then "rewrite" the bill or hold it up in discussion. Meanwhile, the military gets no funding and the war is defacto defunded and the troops MUST come home. If, however, they try to override the veto and are successful, they still get what they want - the troops out of Iraq.
UPDATE: I think there is a good chance the veto will be overridden because Republican members will be desperate for the military to get funding. That then puts a goodly number of Republicans on record as supposedly supporting "troop redeployment". This adds fodder to the Democrat 2008 election efforts. It is clear the Dems don't care about anything short of themselves being in the seats and halls of power... even if it means destruction of the institutions that grant them that coveted power. end update
Later the Dems will come back saying they support the troops and TRIED to fund the war, "...but mean old Republican Bush vetoed the funding. We Dems are the good guys!"
So there you have it. Through political maneuvering, the Democrats have effectively defunded the war and have laid blame for it on the Republicans. This sets them up for 2008 when their candidates will express how awful it was of Bush to defund the war and not support the troops. They will claim that they are the ones strong on defense and troop support.
Meanwhile, Iraq will have slid into chaos and the enemies of America (Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban) will gain a permanent foothold. Iran will build its nuclear reactor and a dirty, if not hot, nuclear bomb will be detonated within our nation in a few years.
The Democrats have long been comparing Iraq to Vietnam. In a way, it is like the 'Nam war. You have a bunch of politicians with a history of dislike for the military directing the Comander-In-Chief and his generals on how to conduct military operations. We lost 'Nam for the same reasons we will lose Iraq: liberal politics.
Congratulations to all you that voted for Democrats in the last election. You sure won. But what did you get? I'll tell you.
The Democrats (Senate and House) have added a troop withdrawal timetable to the spending bill that includes funds for the war (what it was supposed to be for before the pork).
Bush has vowed to veto it.
Here is how things have played out:
The senate has tried, and failed, to pass a non-binding resolution for troop withdrawal several times.
It does not matter if it passes. It never did. What it does is show President Bush the power he no longer has. It was more of a statement saying "you can't stop us... not enough votes. :-P ". The witch hunt for Scooter Libby and Carl Rove and the growing controversy over USAG Alberto Gonzales firing eight U.S. attorneys is another way for the Dems to say "join us or you are next". This also gives Bush yet another black eye and erodes public support for his policies. Congerssional member and Senators will then move toward the liberal side because the constituency will direct them to.
Bush has vowed to veto any appropriations bill that applies a withdrawal time line to the troops in Iraq. That means that the bill, with withdrawal, will get passed (narrowly, but still passed).
Bush will veto.
The Dems will then "rewrite" the bill or hold it up in discussion. Meanwhile, the military gets no funding and the war is defacto defunded and the troops MUST come home. If, however, they try to override the veto and are successful, they still get what they want - the troops out of Iraq.
UPDATE: I think there is a good chance the veto will be overridden because Republican members will be desperate for the military to get funding. That then puts a goodly number of Republicans on record as supposedly supporting "troop redeployment". This adds fodder to the Democrat 2008 election efforts. It is clear the Dems don't care about anything short of themselves being in the seats and halls of power... even if it means destruction of the institutions that grant them that coveted power. end update
Later the Dems will come back saying they support the troops and TRIED to fund the war, "...but mean old Republican Bush vetoed the funding. We Dems are the good guys!"
So there you have it. Through political maneuvering, the Democrats have effectively defunded the war and have laid blame for it on the Republicans. This sets them up for 2008 when their candidates will express how awful it was of Bush to defund the war and not support the troops. They will claim that they are the ones strong on defense and troop support.
Meanwhile, Iraq will have slid into chaos and the enemies of America (Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban) will gain a permanent foothold. Iran will build its nuclear reactor and a dirty, if not hot, nuclear bomb will be detonated within our nation in a few years.
The Democrats have long been comparing Iraq to Vietnam. In a way, it is like the 'Nam war. You have a bunch of politicians with a history of dislike for the military directing the Comander-In-Chief and his generals on how to conduct military operations. We lost 'Nam for the same reasons we will lose Iraq: liberal politics.