So the House has at last passed a measure that sets a deadline for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, and Al Qaeda couldn't be happier. Finally, the enemy has what they've always wanted - a definite date when the Americans will vacate. They have their target. They know how long to hold out. In fact, they could just take the year off, build up their arms and manpower and prepare for their coup that will certainly happen the moment the US is out of the picture. I've never seen a move so undermining as what the House as done. Which brings up the question...how did Pelosi finally get the votes for this measure?
Well, here's the answer. The spending bill includes spending for the war, but also includes a whole lot more (other than the one year deadline). The Democrats, in an effort to boost support for the bill and "buy more votes" added approximately $20 Billion of domestic spending to the bill. Some would call this pork. Take a look.
- $25 Million for spinach farmers (appealing for Calif. representatives)
- $120 Million for the shrimp industry (very nice if you're from the Gulf area, esp. Florida)
- $74 Million for peanut storage
- $5 Million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers
- $20 + million for dairy farmers
Remember, this is a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and somehow we're giving billions of dollars to spinach and peanut farmers, neither of whom are armed on the front lines of these wars. So either our troops should be expecting some fancy shrimp and cheese in their mess halls, or the Dems have just done something completely unethical...all the while accusing Bush and Gonzalez of being unethical for firing a few attorneys. This is bribery, which is common in Washington, but what makes this especially disgusting is that the bribery is meant to prematurely end the war in Iraq, regardless of how the military leaders feel about. The Generals and Colonels no longer have a say in how much longer this conflict will last. Instead, the brilliant military mind of Nancy Pelosi will make that call. Sounds great! I'm sure our troops feel better already.
It's interesting how the deadline falls right in the middle of Primary season, and just a few months before the '08 election. But I'm sure that's purely coincidental.......
8 comments:
"Instead, the brilliant military mind of Nancy Pelosi will make that call."
Well, hell, she couldn't do any worse than the morons who have been making the calls for the last four years.
1. I agree with you that I find adding pork in order to get a needed bill passed is ugly.
2. "It's interesting how the deadline falls right in the middle of Primary season, and just a few months before the '08 election."
Not interesting at all. The People have spoken. We want the US out of Iraq. The leaders are beginning to follow the People's wishes.
You disagree with the majority in this case, but unfortunately for your point of view, we the people have spoken in opposition to that view.
3. If we never have a plan for getting out, we'll never get out. If we say, "Well, by saying that we're leaving in 2050, then all the terrorists have to do is wait until 2050!"
It is a prescription for war without end.
Anonymous - real nice. I like how you insult our military and then don't bother to leave a name. Would you like to spit on a few troops next, or maybe call them "baby killers"?
Dan, a plan that includes a deadline implies that we are willing to accept defeat. If that's your wish then fine. And to correct you, while the majority of people want out of Iraq, MOST of them do not agree with a deadline or an immediate withdrawal. Don't misinterpret the Dems victory with the nationwide acceptance of defeatism because it's NOT a concept most Americans embrace.
I think it's clear that the majority of the citizenry wants an exit strategy now. I'd cite some of the polls, but I'm guessing you don't trust polls.
Show me a poll that shows the majority want a DEADLINE or IMMEDIATE UNCONDITIONAL withdrawal and I'll cede the point.
Here's one (CNN, this year), where they say:
Fifty-four percent of Americans said the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion.
Nearly six in 10 of those polled want to see U.S. troops leave Iraq either immediately or within a year. In addition, more people would prefer Congress to run U.S. policy in Iraq than President Bush.
Here's another (Zogby, Feb 2006).
Here's another (USA Today, June 2006).
Here's another from this year (WaPo-ABC) that shows a chart showing the growing desire for a deadline to leave.
I could go on. Polls vary from one to the next a bit, but there seems to be a clear concensus that,
1. we want a withdrawal plan, and
2. we want that soon (within a year).
The words "immediate unconditional withdrawal" do not appear to be in the polls. Nonetheless, a deadline does appear to be wanted.
Do you have reasons for suspecting otherwise?
[And, by the way, we do not think of a withdrawal as being "accepting defeat." We think we defeated ourselves when we invaded Iraq in the manner we did, and that there is no clear positive way out. We aren't wanting to commit to a war without end as that seems ridiculous and counter-productive.]
Very well. I am a man of my word. It would appear that there are polls where the majority of Americans demand an immediate retreat.
But, to correct your attempt at spin, an immediate withdrawal IS accepting defeat. That's the very definition of withdrawal in regards to war. Withdrawing troops in the middle of combat is retreating...which, again by definition, is accepting defeatno matter how one may rationalize it. Lee could have said the same thing you said about his pre-Gettysburg campaign...but he didn't. Instead, he withdrew and accepted defeat. What's the problem with the Left admitting that?
"Very well. I am a man of my word."
Very noble of you, John.
"But, to correct your attempt at spin, an immediate withdrawal IS accepting defeat."
Perhaps to you. If you don't mind, we might hold a different opinion.
Post a Comment