So They Sent a Letter
The main topic of conversation all yesterday was of course the letter sent by the Democratic leadership to President Bush opposing any troop increases in Iraq. My initial thoughts? Big friggin' whoop. I'm trying to feel optimistic about it, trust me, I really am. Nor do I wish to decry the Dems for making their stance on the issue known, but does anyone really think the Decider gives a damn what the Democrats think? He was contemptuous of Congress even when his own party held the reins. One need only look to his prodigious use of signing statements to get an idea of how much he values the will of Congress. You think he'll be anymore amenable now that the Dems are in charge?
All Bush cares about is salvaging his legacy. And if that means sending more of our troops off to fight and die for what many see as a lost cause at this point, so be it.
Personally, I prefer Jack Murtha's approach, whereby Congress simply denies Bush the funds to escalate the war. Now some will say "how dare you suggest we tie the President's hands, you must want the terrorists to win!" Only problem is we aren't fighting the same war anymore. The war our soldiers went into Iraq for ended the moment Saddam's regime was toppled. Since then is has been an occupation, plain an simple. And any increase in our forces in this occupation shouldn't be left up to just one man. For ultimately it will be our blood and our treasure that will be spent just so Bush can pawn off the collapse of his failed experiment in Middle East to his successor.
If an electoral thumpin' and Poppy's posse weren't enough to pierce the Bush Bubble, I doubt a strongly-worded letter, no matter how sharp the edges, will either.
More from Marty Lederman, clammyc, Tim Grieve, Michael Stickings and The Heretik.
(Filed at State of the Day)
All Bush cares about is salvaging his legacy. And if that means sending more of our troops off to fight and die for what many see as a lost cause at this point, so be it.
Personally, I prefer Jack Murtha's approach, whereby Congress simply denies Bush the funds to escalate the war. Now some will say "how dare you suggest we tie the President's hands, you must want the terrorists to win!" Only problem is we aren't fighting the same war anymore. The war our soldiers went into Iraq for ended the moment Saddam's regime was toppled. Since then is has been an occupation, plain an simple. And any increase in our forces in this occupation shouldn't be left up to just one man. For ultimately it will be our blood and our treasure that will be spent just so Bush can pawn off the collapse of his failed experiment in Middle East to his successor.
If an electoral thumpin' and Poppy's posse weren't enough to pierce the Bush Bubble, I doubt a strongly-worded letter, no matter how sharp the edges, will either.
More from Marty Lederman, clammyc, Tim Grieve, Michael Stickings and The Heretik.
(Filed at State of the Day)
You're right, we aren't fighting the same war any more. Which means that people need to quit using preconceived notions based on the mistaken justification for the invasion, and take a long hard look at Iraq - and what the consequences of withdrawal are.
I'm tired of seeing our leaders back home playing politics - and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans - instead of focusing on real solutions.
The problem is, right now the real solution is not a withdrawal. Due to our own mistakes and Iraqi culture, things are at the point where a withdrawal is absolutely the worst decision, compounding three years of bad decisions.
But for people who've decided that Iraq has already been lost, and that there's no point in further loss of life, I suppose that no argument is going to convince them differently.
Read some of the reasons why Saudi Arabia and other countries around here have requested we not be too hasty in leaving. Read some of the soldier's blogs, and see that even though the public back home may feel its hopeless the soldier's are still willing to fight.
Not idealistically, or naively, or with any certainty of success. But with all the times Bush has been wrong, its not surprising that nobody recognizes when he's finally right.
Posted by
Anonymous |
1/06/2007 06:15:00 AM
I agree with you that a hasty retreat is probably not the best of all available options. But like you said, after three years of bad decisions, any decision now, be it withdrawal or escalation, will have serious consequences that will have to be dealt with. Which is what makes having a true debate about how to proceed so vital.
Posted by
The Xsociate |
1/06/2007 06:45:00 AM
Post a Comment