Fogbuster

Folks, we have a responsibility to end this thing right. To do that requires much more than feel-good measures that withdraw our troops from the battlefield; tens of millions of lives -- the entire Middle East, if not the world -- are depending on us to do it properly. Get it wrong and we are in for some very serious challenges from abroad. More attacks from abroad would be likely, and worse than 9/11 by several magnitudes. The perception of fear or weakness inspires evil to attack.

---------------------

After lots of hard work getting the spin just right, a House-Senate conference committee has cobbled together a $124 billion war-funding bill for President Bush to veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made sure the bill, which is expected to pass the House and Senate today, included all of the pork and other essentials for Democratic Party constituencies. But when it came to the 150,000 U.S. troops now fighting in Iraq, lawmakers included enough poison-pill language to ensure a presidential veto -- which will in turn delay much-needed support for military operations in Iraq.

The Iraq portions of the bill serve to illustrate why the Framers did not give the legislative branch primary authority to conduct foreign policy. Under the legislation, American troops will begin pulling out by July 1 if the elected Iraqi government fails to meet a series of congressional demands, which include reducing sectarian violence -- meaning, in effect, that if al Qaeda wants to speed up an American troop pullout, it might want to bomb more Shi'ite mosques -- guaranteeing that sectarian violence would worsen.

Other demands include enactment of a law to share oil revenue. Desirable as this is, it is irrelevant if security does not exist in Iraq, and the U.S. military remains the only thing standing in the way of a total collapse of the government. But the bill goes on to mandate that even if the Iraqis meet all of Washington's demands, the troops will start to leave Iraq Oct. 1, with a goal of bringing most of them home by next April.

One might ask: What happens if the terrorist insurgents and militias haven't decided to go out of business by that time? In Congress's fantasy world, none of that matters. This legislation wasn't put together with the goal of defeating jihadists on the battlefield. Quite the contrary: With Republican support negligible, it was crafted to ensure the broadest possible coalition of Democrats would vote for a surrender bill. To satisfy the MoveOn.org types, particularly in the House, the bill starts the pullout as early as nine and a half weeks from now. In an effort to provide political cover for House "Blue Dogs" from more conservative districts who want to vote with Mrs. Pelosi, it contains troop-withdrawal language that sets a "goal" for pulling out rather than a deadline.

more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed...2610-9333r.htm


//

sdaniels7114

The troops aren't going to leave. Its a simple matter for Bush to pull out his veto stamp and that's that. The troops won't be without bullets because as soon as Bush vetos this one, a bill that finances the war will pass in a matter of days. This bill is about stopping any Republican BS about this war being bipartisan. Its Bush's war, nobody else wanted it and this bill will make sure that the Republicans can't weasel their way out of facing the political costs. They got hammered in '06 and the slaughter will only continue in '08.

Fogbuster

... unless Iraq develops into a peaceful, well-reconstructed nation, a model of what democratic reforms can do. Dangerously, it seems for political advantage, Democrats don't want Iraq to get better. Very dangerous competing interests here. Which is why Abraham Lincoln alluded to those who opposed a war time president's policies needed to be restrained.



//

Patters

Fog, the west has been trying for centuries to "enlighten" other parts of the world, and in doing so have empowered despots, slaughtered or caused the slaughter of millions of innocent people, and left countries in ruins. I think you're naive if you believe war is the answer. While you believe what we're doing now is noble and right, that's the same sort of belief that allowed England to colonize and destroy much of Africa, that allowed King Leopold to kill millions of Africans, that allowed the west to in effect appoint corrupt leaders in parts of the Middle East, etc. To bring democracy to Iraq, we have to leave and work hard for a negotiated peace. Without the U.S. in Iraq, many of the insurgent groups would lose their reason for existence.

sdaniels7114

Undoubtedly. Anything is possible and any Democrat that's against the nations of the Middle East willingly accepting Democracy is a fool. Bush started out with a goal that, had it been achievable, would have been so historically profound they would have had to make room for his head on Mt Rushmore. The problem lies in the fact that the goal was not achievable, and he should have known better.

PatsWSB47

Yes Fog, you see if it were not for the evil west, these otherwise peaceful and loving good people would have been living in a virtual paradise. Their culture of human rights for all, religious freedom, equality for their women and gay rights would have been been a beacon and envy of the whole world. Not one drop of blood would have ever been shed.

Bad west! Bad, Bad, Bad! (but please continue to send aid for natural disaters).

Seriously though, some groups would be smaller, yes but as nations move toward freedom, extremists will surface to stop it no matter where it starts from. Kissing a woman in public sets the wheels in motion for God's sake and that isn't even from Islamic extremists.

Patters

How quickly you forget that the peaceful and loving west has killed upwards of 100,000,000 over the last 150 years. By those standards, bin Laden seems like a peacenik! We're not as morally superior as you seem to think.

PatsWSB47

The problem is Patters you blame us for our past and us for their present. Are we to blame for everything for crying out loud? Your excuse of trying to place perspective on everything always starts by digging some dirt on the USA. So not only do you get to bash the evil USA, you give a virtual pass for Bin Laden and his ilk becasue after all, it's our fault they're evil, not theirs. I know you didn't say this and you didn't say that but your tone is always the same. Start with whats wrong with us and excuse whats wrong with them.

shmessy

Wow.

You need to learn about the Middle East, specifically Iraq. That line of yours above is stunning in its naivete and ignorance of that area......matched only by the stunningly bad info this administration possesses about that area.

Having worked that side of the world for one of our intelligence agencies during Reagan and Bush One, I can tell you that dream is as ridiculously imposssible as Tom Brady growing a third ear.

This Iraq adventure was a tragic boondoggle from the first. (However, Desert Storm was a "good war" and helped our country solidify its economy and standing in the world for the 1990's).

__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com

Patters

My only point is that I view our attack on Iraq as a continuation of a failed and destructive policy by the west that started ages ago. The west is responsible for many of the problems in many regions of the world. Historically, the west has done a lot of harm, and I see Bush's war in that context. He might mean well, but even if he does, he is doing far more harm than good. I don't see this war as enhancing American safety or interests in any way, and I think we have to get out and use diplomacy and economic power to try to effect change.

Of course, bin Laden and the other terrorists are far more awful than Bush, and I oppose their strategy, too. But, I'm not looking out for their interests. My concern with this war is that it is making us a more and more desirable enemy for the disaffected throughout the world.