At best, it's a pipe dream. Voting 'no' on one supplemental budget request would direct or cause Bush to do NOTHING. All of the critics who are selling this as an alternative to the leadership compromise are trying to sell an action which has absolutely no guarantee of causing Bush to end his occupation.
Many of the same critics want us to believe that the leadership compromise - which demands a withdrawal before or by the end date in the legislation - is some sort of sell-out which won't work as advertised. But, the critic's won't, and can't, tell us what the effect of their funding denial will be on the troops in the field. They take no responsibility at all for the needs of the soldiers who would be left to continue the occupation. If Bush has enough money to withdraw, as some have suggested, he has enough to continue without the appropriation. It's not as if the money appropriated has actually been reaching the troops.
There's no discussion at all from proponents of the funding cut-off about the safety, security, and other needs of the troops who will be left in Iraq as Bush continues to prosecute his original false mandate from the original IWR. None of that will be addressed by voting no on the one supplemental budget request, but the critics want us to believe that Bush will somehow notice that the troops don't have what they need to keep them safe and secure and give it up.
The critics of the leadership proposal want us to believe that the generals who are presently carrying out Bush's escalation and demanding more troops will somehow start caring about the effects on the soldiers from the denial of one supplemental budget request and refuse to continue.
The critics of the leadership compromise want us to believe that rejecting the one supplemental budget request would be enough to end the entire occupation, but it is a falsehood which only serves to cover for a lack of a credible plan to directly confront Bush. All of the talk of congressional cowardice hasn't made critics any more eager to forward their demands directly to Bush. It's the critics of Congress' action who seem afraid to directly present Bush with a plan for withdrawal. How will they vouch for how Bush will react in the face of the rejection of the supplemental? How can they know?
They can't tell us how they intend to void the original IWR which Bush has used to justify his continued occupation by just voting 'no'. Acting on the funding alone leaves the original, discredited IWR in place.
Merely rejecting the supplemental budget request is nowhere near enough to move Bush. It has absolutely no guarantee of success, yet some will still argue that it would end the occupation before the dates in the compromise legislation. That proposal, which also gambles on Bush's behavior, should be expected to spell out where it expects Bush will bend, or else it's just wishful thinking at best; a clear falsehood at its worst.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
