Why Dave Is Wrong, and Right, at the Same Time
This post is in response to the recent veto of the bill that passed Congress about a withdrawal. Specifically, I'm responding to Dave's post, "Thank You President Bush". I definitely agree that setting an exact withdrawal deadline is silly; however, the problem is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a feasible idea. It's more than true that we need to end the war; it's stupid to think otherwise. We can't afford it. Our deathtoll is ridiculous. We're doing very little over there, and making very little progress for the amount of time and investment we've had. Thus, Bush's plan is not working, and the situation is a complete nightmare. I think it's outrageous to say that Bush is protecting America in his actions, or that he has a good handle on the situation. I would argue that Bush hasn't had a handle on the situation since about the 3rd day of the war (and that may be a bit generous...)
However, the Democrats are not responding well. Whether it's because they are stupid, or because they are backed against the walls by the Republicans, who knows? The only real power Congress has is cutting funding from the war; however, that has been EXTREMELY villanized every time Congress has tried to use it, spun completely as "The Democrats aren't supporting our troops," when in fact much(many) of the proposed funding cuts have been aimed at things that most of us would agree are costing us a lot of money and not that necessary (making more effective explosives, for example). So Democrats will absolutely not cut funding, b/c it makes them horrible humans who don't want our soldiers to have effective armor, or who don't care whether our troops over there make it back safe. Point is, Democrats can't cut funding, UNLESS they do it in response to President Bush. For example, maybe they propose withdrawal deadlines, or give him conditions he has to meet (if you send more troops, they have to be out of there by "X" date, or you have to have met "X" conditions by such and such date), or else they will pull funding. Thus, if Bush doesn't make efforts to have any sort of withdrawal plan, then Congress pulls money, and it's b/c of Bush, not b/c they are heartless bastards. I'm not saying it's the perfect way to do things, but I think it's important to look at it from their point of view and realize that they are pretty backed into a corner.
Thus, the Democrats' strategy may be extremely flawed, and "arbitrary" withdrawal deadlines certainly have many negative sides. The question, though, becomes whether it's worse to have these deadlines (or at least some sort of method to force Bush into eventually ending this war), or to allow the war to continue indefinitely, sending America so deeply into debt that another depression becomes a certainty rather than a possibility. While I understand Dave's argument against the bill, I hope you can see why the bill has come about, and spread some of the responsibility for this huge mess back to the source of the problems in the first place.
