Democrat’s War Spending Plan Struggling, Big Surprise
It looks like despite the political tricks, the Democrat's plan for ending funding for the war is stumbling. This is despite intense lobbying by Pelosi and her gang. Democrats are again proving their inability to unite on anything important. While some Democrats say that this bill goes too far by strong-arming the funding for the war, others further left decry that this bill does not go far enough. This is indicative of the way the next 2 years are going to go if Democrats don’t stop bickering amongst themselves and move forward with a real plan. The mission and heart of the Left movement is a noble one. I support bringing the troops home soon and ending this sham of a war. However a real and workable plan is needed. In addition to that, a real and workable plan must be accepted by the entire Party, as well as center leaning Republicans. This just doesn’t seem plausible at this point. There is too much extremism within the Party. Listen up Liberals, we cannot simply pull the troops out tomorrow! There was no plan when the troops went in to Iraq and if we try to leave with the same strategy, there will be untold bloodshed and chaos, both for Iraqis as well as American troops. And there can be no pullout of the troops without unity within the Democratic Party. Failure to progress in this issue will result in certain defeat for the Democrats in 2008. How can they win if they fail to complete the one thing they promised to do?
3 comments:
i totally agree homie, we gotta have a plan to get out of there, but it can't be irrational.
The Democrats are walking a fine line by purporting to support the troops while tying the hands of military leaders to engage in operations. If memory serves me right, the debate over who was to be the commander-in-chief, was settled sometime around 1786. The Democrats have no interest in a successful resolution in Iraq and would rather see a military disaster so they can regain the White House. Anyway what does paying millions of dollars to store peanuts have to do with an emergency spending bill for continued operations in Iraq?
To anonymous.
True the Dems are walking a fine line, so is the president. However I wouldn't define the line the same way you did. Even if it was political, the Democrats approved an extra 20 BILLION dollars on top of the enourmous 100 billion requested from the president. the line is drawn in the political showdown about who will be responsible for not getting an emergency spending bill to the troops in time before the money runs out.
The debate over who is commander if Chief has been an ongoing one, espcially since Vietnam. The executive branch has figured out a way to wage war without direct permission from the Congress, circumventing the constitution. In this case, i dont think it is unreasonable for the Congress to assert how the money is spent. If Bush wants the power to conduct this war as commander in chief, he should ask for it like Roosevelt did in 1941.
both sides are guilty of using the troops as leverage. the republicans claim anyone trying to end the war doesnt care about the troops. George Bush had no interest in the people of Iraq going in, as obvious by his planning and execution of the invasion, occupation and laughable rebuilding of the nation.
It is noteworthy that the dems tried to purchase several votes for their bill with "storehouses of peanuts", however this is not entirely abnormal. both sides are guilty of buying votes. not to say that it isn't in bad taste, which is why i called it a dirty trick.
Post a Comment