Let the slap-fighting begin...
Thomas Keister
April 25, 2007
With the face-off in waiting in the wings, Democratic leaders have launched a bill which would start the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by October 1, or earlier if G-Dub cannot show progress from the Iraqi government. The ultimate pull-out goal would be completed within six months of the initial withdrawal. After the pull-out is completed, U.S. forces would focus on protecting American personnel and facilities, counter-terrorism, and training and arming the Iraqi forces.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), echoing the hugely popular sentiment that our president is in "denial," stated that "(N)o longer will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." Well, it's about time. I'm still like the rest of the country, waiting to see if the main event lives up to the hype, but it is encouraging to hear a little more than the standard "change is a comin'" tribal chant. For now.
G-Dub, no doubt on his way to Google up "denial," shrugged off the the $124 billion bill, which also contains domestic spending items on his veto list, in addition to yet another $90 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Expect some good punchline mileage on the late night talk shows and The Daily Show as this one progresses, with Democrats hoping to get the bill to President Bush by next week.
What I need to know is if this bill will supposedly have troops out of Iraq within the next twelve months, why do they need another $90 billion war appropriation? Shouldn't we be reducing the war spending in relation to the reduction of troop presence, or is Haliburton in danger of coming up short on their quarterly projections? Don't get me wrong, the bill does address the vital need to pull troops from Iraq, but at a huge waste of funds and failing to solve the issue of the United States' continued nation building. With a reduced military role in Iraq, that is exactly what training (and arming) the Iraqi forces amounts to. What then, if Dubya decides we need a 15,000 troop "training staff" in Iraq?
Bracing for conflict, Dubya made it very clear how he looked upon the proceedings, stating he "will strongly reject any artificial timetable for withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job." Wait, what? That is all President Bush has been doing since 2003, telling the troops how to do their job. First, he told them to look for WMDs that weren't there, and then he told them he was cool with them breaking international law (until everybody got caught), and to top it off, he has been telling them to do all of that and so much more, and without even having the right equipment or the right amounts of it.
While I'm touch-and-go on the troop-pullout bill, I will have to slightly disagree with Sen. Reid on one point, and that is there is a far cry between denial and a total disconnect from reality.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), echoing the hugely popular sentiment that our president is in "denial," stated that "(N)o longer will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." Well, it's about time. I'm still like the rest of the country, waiting to see if the main event lives up to the hype, but it is encouraging to hear a little more than the standard "change is a comin'" tribal chant. For now.
G-Dub, no doubt on his way to Google up "denial," shrugged off the the $124 billion bill, which also contains domestic spending items on his veto list, in addition to yet another $90 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Expect some good punchline mileage on the late night talk shows and The Daily Show as this one progresses, with Democrats hoping to get the bill to President Bush by next week.
What I need to know is if this bill will supposedly have troops out of Iraq within the next twelve months, why do they need another $90 billion war appropriation? Shouldn't we be reducing the war spending in relation to the reduction of troop presence, or is Haliburton in danger of coming up short on their quarterly projections? Don't get me wrong, the bill does address the vital need to pull troops from Iraq, but at a huge waste of funds and failing to solve the issue of the United States' continued nation building. With a reduced military role in Iraq, that is exactly what training (and arming) the Iraqi forces amounts to. What then, if Dubya decides we need a 15,000 troop "training staff" in Iraq?
Bracing for conflict, Dubya made it very clear how he looked upon the proceedings, stating he "will strongly reject any artificial timetable for withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job." Wait, what? That is all President Bush has been doing since 2003, telling the troops how to do their job. First, he told them to look for WMDs that weren't there, and then he told them he was cool with them breaking international law (until everybody got caught), and to top it off, he has been telling them to do all of that and so much more, and without even having the right equipment or the right amounts of it.
While I'm touch-and-go on the troop-pullout bill, I will have to slightly disagree with Sen. Reid on one point, and that is there is a far cry between denial and a total disconnect from reality.