There's a lot of anger here about the bill passed by Congress because it didn't include a timetable. I'm still fuming every time I turn on the news here in Berlin and hear about Bush's victory (note to Democrats, you're not helping your global image).
I was even angrier when I discovered that my representative, Fighting Dem Tim Walz voted in favor of the resolution. Surely one of our Fighting Dems would be the most vocal opponents of keeping our troops there. However, I found a story about his statement regarding his vote over at Blue Stem Prairie that dissipated some of that anger.
Follow me below the fold for his statement.a
Thankfully he didn't say that this was the "first step" to controlling George Bush, because this method is about as effective as Michael Brown in FEMA. Instead, Walz got closer to Bush's true character (emphasis added):
I believe that if Congress rejects the funding proposal, President Bush will leave our solders in Iraq regardless of whether they have the resources necessary for their safety. I spent 24 years serving in our Armed Forces training and equipping young people to fight for their country. I understand the consequences of cutting budgets for troops in the field, and I cannot allow that to happen. The only way I can moderate the President's recklessness is to ensure he does not leave our soldiers in Iraq without the funding and equipment they need,
Remember, Rumsfeld said you "to to war with the army you have, not the army you may wish to have." President Bush still believes this, and doesn't care how much of the military or nation breaks in the process.
President Bush will stay at war in Iraq until the end of his term whether we include a timetable or not and whether we have a properly equipped army or not.
In fact, President Bush is probably counting the days until he leaves office with as much anticipation as we are.
Update [2007-5-25 15:52:6 by guyermo]:
Blue Stem Prairie has some more of his release in the form of an op-ed posted. If you read both the articles you'll notice that paragraphs are basically identical.
But also keep in mind that when Walz talks about voting for funding for the troops, he's voting to fund his old unit, friends, neighbors, etc. In this sense, President Bush basically has him by the balls in a way he doesn't for other Democrats.
Some advised me to vote against continued funding for the war, in order to show my unhappiness with the way the president has handled it. I could not do that. I came to Congress to make hard decisions on behalf of the people of southern Minnesota and in this case, I believe my first responsibility is to ensure the safety of those Minnesotans who are serving in Iraq by making sure they have the resources they need. The president may be willing to play a game of political chicken with our troops, but I am not.
I'm still not happy with his vote. I only hope he can help convince his colleagues on the other side to support some other measure to help bring the troops home sooner.