Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.
The legislation also sets a goal of a complete pullout by April 1, 2008, he said.
In remarks prepared for delivery, Reid said that under the legislation the troops that remain after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct ''targeted counter-terror operations.''
President Bush has set his line in the sand and demands complete autonomy and trust in his judgment on how to conduct the war in Iraq in order to hand it off to someone else on January 20, 2009.
"I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," the president said.
Bush made his comments to reporters in the Oval Office as he met with senior military leaders, including his top general in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.
The Democratic response is the politically, policy and morally correct one in my opinion. Policy wise, there is no overriding positive strategic goal that the US military can accomplish on its own in Iraq at this time. The US military is broken, US soft power has been run down, and the budget has been busted at a time when we should be preparing for future known expenses. Fixing the damage gets harder the longer we push reality off.
Morally, if one believes that the war in Iraq is only producing net costs and not benefits, it is just to take what steps one can take to end the war. The steps that can be taken are political steps, and none of them are immediate steps. Instead any means of ending the war short of either a double impeachment or a Martian invasion will be an iterative and time consuming process.
Finally, sending a bill with dates and a promise of withdrawal to be vetoed is a political goldmine for Democrats. This is a clear distinction between the two parties, and the public will not be paying intimate attention to the details. Instead, as Swopa at Needlenose points out, the American public will see that Democrats are trying to end the war and George W. Bush supported by a majority of both Republican caucuses are trusting George W. Bush's judgment.
As I wrote earlier this week, trusting George W. Bush's judgement is not a winning argument:
Be tough, the American public is ahead of you on this one, and they are willing to support people who do not trust George W. Bush to get laid in a Turkish whorehouse while passing out $100 bills. Be tough and stick to your guns. The worst thing that happens is George W. Bush vetoes this bill with the conditions attached to it, and Republicans are forced to go on record again supporting George W. Bush's judgment
Polling indicates that the public as a whole trusts Democrats far more than Republicans and specifically George W. Bush on what to do next in Iraq. Marginal Republican incumbents who barely survived in 2006 must dread the potential scenario that the 2008 elections' central question will be the same question that kicked out so many GOP incumbents ---- "Do you believe George W. Bush has good judgment and is trustworthy on Iraq?"
If the Democrats lose the veto overturning vote which is overwhelmingly likely, I support the Murtha proposal to pass a short term no strings attached funding resolution for two or three months as that would push the cash flow shortfall for current operations until September while another timetable bill with stricter restrictions are pushed forward. This negates the "defunding the troops" meme while also squeezing marginal Republicans who do not want a vote trail that extends into next year of supporting George W. Bush's judgment as valid and sound on Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment