Seventh Tuesday Topic
The United States Congress passed a bill last week limiting war funding and calling for substantial withdrawal by next March.
President Bush is expected to veto. It is also expected that there are insufficient votes to override this veto, and this will lead to negotiations on a compromise bill.
Do you trust those who are against the war in the US Congress to stick to their policies and stand up for peace? If not, do you find any wholly political solutions likely or viable for the short-term in ending the Iraq War?
Labels: Tuesday Topics
3 Comments:
First of all, $124.2 billion is NOT "limiting war funding." That's, in fact, the highest single war spending request the Congress has yet granted the president. Some $100 billion out of the $124 billion will be used to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the Bush budget, in fact, carries war funding all the way into 2009! Just to correct the record there. Moreover, "substantial withdrawal" is debatable as well. The bill does not even set a binding deadline for the withdrawal of COMBAT troops, let alone all troops and contractors. Rather, it merely SUGGESTS April 1st of next year as a recommendation to the president, which he doesn't have to adhere to if he doesn't wish to. In fact, troop withdrawals don't even have to begin until October 1st! That's five months from now! The proposal of a possible earlier beginning to withdrawals is only on conditions such as the further privatization of Iraq's oil reserves (an objectionable goal in any event, in my opinion). In conclusion, Congress has hardly taken a stand for peace. Yet now the top Congressional officials are calling for a FURTHER compromise??! The only thing left is push back further the date by which troop withdrawals must begin or to make that non-binding as well! Believe it or not, I think I actually support the veto of this atrocious bill! A veto will further delay war funding, putting increased pressure on Bush to begin withdrawing the troops in the immediate future. The only people in Congress who are legitimately against the war are the progressive Democrats who voted against the war supplemental, and they were few and far between. Those are the people in Congress I trust to "stick to their policies and stand up for peace." The rest have already failed in that department.
Even if he has troops eating their suede desert boots and firing training rounds, Bush is going to keep troops in the field. And he figures that if some die under those conditions, he can blame the inability of the Democrats to cave to his demands as the reason for those troops dying.
The sick thing is that a lot of people will accept such accusations at face value.
One has to remember, pressure doesn't seem to mean very much to George W. Bush.
Nothing seems to mean anything to G.W.Bush, except taking from the poor and pushing them even further down the mud they're already drowned in. Appreciate life, stop the war!
Post a Comment
<< Home