Republican = Al Qaeda
The pro war crazies are chanting two mantras about the timid democrats passing a suggested timeline along with another $100 billion bucks for Bush's folly.
Mantra 1 is the democrats are making the troops a political football, and not supporting them, by refusing to give them the funds they need. This is pure bullshit on many levels. First, it is factually incorrect. The democrats have passed a funding bill. Bush refuses to sign it because of the timetable. Second, what do the troops really need? Fifteen month rotations in Iraq, with no strategy or diplomatic initiatives in sight? I don't think so. The congress is trying to nudge Bush into giving the troops, and the rest of us, what we really need, but he is resisting.
Mantra 2 is that setting a timetable is surrendering to terrorists. But consider how this war could end. We could reach an agreement with the resistance. We could reach an agreement to create an international force to limit the chaos when we leave. Or we could just leave. There is another option, and that is what the pro war crazies prefer: to keep fighting, under the delusion that by subjecting Iraq to bombing, house to house searches, and daily humilation and misery, you can somehow kill off the resistance faster than it can attract new recruits. Of the non-delusional options available, the only one that congress can force to happen is the third one. The timeline is a gentle prod to the administration to get off their butts and pursure the other two options. It looks like Bush, Cheney, and the worst Secretary of State in history will choose not to do that. By their choice not to pursue political means to end the war, despite the urging of congress, the military leadership, and the public, they are the ones surrendering to the resistance. Instead of getting the troops out of the meat grinder, they will leave them there, and try to spin the inevitable loss as a "Democratic surrender", instead as a Republican blunder.
Mantra 1 is the democrats are making the troops a political football, and not supporting them, by refusing to give them the funds they need. This is pure bullshit on many levels. First, it is factually incorrect. The democrats have passed a funding bill. Bush refuses to sign it because of the timetable. Second, what do the troops really need? Fifteen month rotations in Iraq, with no strategy or diplomatic initiatives in sight? I don't think so. The congress is trying to nudge Bush into giving the troops, and the rest of us, what we really need, but he is resisting.
Mantra 2 is that setting a timetable is surrendering to terrorists. But consider how this war could end. We could reach an agreement with the resistance. We could reach an agreement to create an international force to limit the chaos when we leave. Or we could just leave. There is another option, and that is what the pro war crazies prefer: to keep fighting, under the delusion that by subjecting Iraq to bombing, house to house searches, and daily humilation and misery, you can somehow kill off the resistance faster than it can attract new recruits. Of the non-delusional options available, the only one that congress can force to happen is the third one. The timeline is a gentle prod to the administration to get off their butts and pursure the other two options. It looks like Bush, Cheney, and the worst Secretary of State in history will choose not to do that. By their choice not to pursue political means to end the war, despite the urging of congress, the military leadership, and the public, they are the ones surrendering to the resistance. Instead of getting the troops out of the meat grinder, they will leave them there, and try to spin the inevitable loss as a "Democratic surrender", instead as a Republican blunder.
posted by Tommy Times at 5:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home