Underlying the criticism is the position or assumption that the Democrats should have been willing to allow current efforts in Iraq to go unfunded.
Now, we can sit here and say "well, it was Bush's decision to let them go unfunded moreso than Democrats. After all, he vetoed funding for the troops." And that is a fair point, and one I readily concede for the sake of this argument.
However, if the Democrats had not 'caved' this week, there would still be no funding provided. Even though it's Bush's fault, the bottom line is that there's no money.
In other words, the Democrats are being faulted not being willing to allow funding to lapse. Not for being against 'defunding' but rather for being unwilling to allow Bush to cut off funding for the current operations over there.
So, the question/challenge for all those who decry the Democrats' unwillingness to let operations over there go unfunded:
What effect would a cessation of funding have on the ability of troops over there to carry out their orders?
In other words, if the impasse between Congress and the White House continued, what would the effect be on what happens in Iraq? What difference would it make to the men and women with sand in their boots? (Note: My assumption is that Bush would not just shrug his shoulders after a week and yank everyone out of Iraq)
If it wouldn't interfere with their ability to carry out their orders, what difference would it make if Congress allowed Bush to cut off funding?
If it did interfere with the troops' ability to carry out their mission, can we really sit here and criticize Democrats for willfully allowing the troops to go without everything they need?
I myself have spoken in favor of the short term funding approach--short, clean bills that did not give Bush all the money right away but also did not try to disguise Harry Reid's "weak tea" as a meaningful gesture. But, that's not really satisfactory either--much more so a way of applying political pressure and keeping the issue in the public eye--not as a way to formally rein Bush in.
So, what could the Democrats have done at this point to effectively rein Bush in while not interfering with the ability of the troops to carry out their mission on the ground? If you advocate the Reid-Feingold (can we take Harry Reid's name off that legislation now?) approach, please make sure to specify what effect a cessation of funding would have on the ability of troops in Iraq to carry out their orders.
UpdateThis is what I'm talking about:
I asked:
And what are the consequences
on the ground in Iraq if he doesn't sign any of our (funding) measures into law?
Two responses:
Then he runs out of money and
is forced to end the occupation. How is this unclear or controversial?
Do you support continuing the occupation or ending it?
Nothing.
Read Feingold's statement downthread.
Or don't.
Because it shoots your petty argument all to hell.
Folks, both answers can't be right.
Comments are closed on this story.