How the Democrats are supporting the troops
On CBS’s Face the Nation yesterday — from Think Progress (which has the video and transcript) — Speaker Pelosi argued that President Bush should have to justify any troop increase in Iraq in order to receive any funding for it:
[I]f the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions. And we’ve gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.
It is indeed “a war without end” and, in November, the American people “rejected” it. Bush and his warmongers, not to mention Republican supporters of the war generally, will no doubt accuse Pelosi and the Democrats of not supporting the troops. That’ll be the spin to make Democrats look bad. But here’s more of what Pelosi said:
If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now. The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them.
The Democrats “support the troops who are there” and also support an overall increase in the size of the military. What they oppose is “a blank check” to let Bush “do whatever he wishes there”. And what they’re trying to do here is to re-establish a healthy balance of power between Congress and the White House.
And I would add this: How does it show support for the troops to send more of them over to fight in a war that is already lost, a war that has been a disaster and, in my view, a failure? How does it show support for the troops to throw more of them into the middle of a brutal civil war?
It seems to me that showing support for the troops means demanding accountability of those who put them in harm’s way, of those who are sending them off to risk their lives for this disaster, this failure, this lost cause.
Yes, supporting the troops now means holding Bush accountable. Here’s how Bob Geiger put it: “The days of Bush’s absolute rule under a Republican Congress are over.”
Finally.
(For more, see The Carpetbagger Report, The Agonist, CorrenteWire, and The Impolitic.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
4 Responses to “How the Democrats are supporting the troops”
Why can’t our military set up a base, outside of any major city or province, somewhere out far enough where we could see any enemies coming, and train an Iraqi army, police force, and any other security personal needed, in relative safety and with more effectiveness. A US operated training facility and headquarters for a limited US force to offer strategic support, intell, and training, may keep us from losing more of our boys, allow us to get the hell out of the civil war, and still support the reconstruction of Iraq. Am I naiive?
It’s fun watching the democrats squirming now. Trying to defend their actions as they know they are in power……posting every little tid bit of what Pelosi said and didnt say. Defending every breath coming from her mouth.
Have fun. Its a losing battle
Upinsmoke, what a pitiful comment. The GOP rubber stamping of “supplemental” appropriations to hide the costs and uses of our tax dollars violate every principle of fiscal conservatism. I’m with Pelosi. I don’t want to shortchange the troops the way Republicans did by sending them in with too few troops, poorly armored vehicles, inadequate protective gear, etc. Bush cannot be trusted. Like Pelosi, I want to see every dime Bush wants to spend detailed on the spreadsheet, itemized and justified, and tied to a realistic, winnable strategy. Bush is in charge of foreign policy not the Congress. Read the Constitution, dammit.
And yeah, along with 89% of Americans, I don’t want to escalate this war. I want our troops home. Now.
Upinsmoke- The alternative to Pelosi’s scrutiny is Bush’s judgements which have been almost uniformly flawed. He has put the US in an untenable position , with only terrible options to choose from and the 109th Congress gave him a blank check to do so. The ISG was a gift that he willfully ignored, in order to fulfill whatever fantasy destiny he thinks he will find by enlarging our presence in Iraq. He still holds enough sway to get support from most in his party for bad decisions. If they stick with him, they will pay in ’08. The Democrats need to rise to the occasion and hold his feet to the fire. No it won’t help civility in Washington. But they need to do what the voters sent them there to do.