Now, I don't know about you, but we at the Populist Review are getting pretty tired of the line that cutting funding for an expansion of the war means leaving our troops defenseless in Iraq. Hillary's using it. Biden's using it. Edwards is using it. Reid's using it. Their all using it as a way to avoid a necessary constitutional showdown with Bush.
But, let's be clear on one thing: cutting funds for this surge means cutting funds for those additional troops who haven't left our shores, not the ones overseas. And we would hope, at the very least, this Democratic Congress would try to stop additional troops from heading to the Middle East. I mean, come on. You guys were elected to withdraw our troops from Iraq, right? We all knew it wouldn't be easy. We knew it would take a fight and we knew it wouldn't happen overnight. But an increase in troop levels with little more than a wimper and a few promises about resolutions?
Come on.
As if to make our case, we received an email from Sen. Reid this afternoon, outlining his position on Iraq, and it's the most milquetoast position we've seen since the day Chamberlain conceded Poland to Hitler. It begins with the Dems' new excuse for capitulating to Bush: cutting funds for Iraq means cutting weapons for our troops in the field [and it adds a nouveau tinge of nationalism just to make sure we're all on the same page]:
"We must ensure that our brave troops currently serving in Iraq have exactly what they need to successfully carry out their mission."
What mission? Did we miss something here?
It continues with a compete capilulation to the omnipotence of the Executive Branch [and a barb for those who would advocate cutting funds]:
"Although some have suggested that Congress withhold funds from the war, it is ultimately up to the President as Commander-in-Chief to find and implement a new strategy for success in Iraq."
Success in Iraq? Has anyone ever figured out what that means? Does it mean Chevon and ExxonMobil get the oil rights? Does it mean 1,000,000 Iraqi dead? Does it mean glistening shopping centers in downtown Baghdad and regular monorail service to the Anbar province?
The Senator from Searchlight continues: "Congress can be most effective by conducting the tough oversight needed to ensure a change in policy in Iraq."
Now there's a good one. In one sentence he announces that the Democratic majority perfers sound-bite investigations to substantive measures [which pretty much makes a mockery of the word "tough").
"With specific regard to Iraq funding, one of the best ways to ensure Congressional oversight over the war is to require greater transparency and accountability in the budget for the war."
Oh. So, it's okay to keep funding the war at astronomical levels to the detriment of the American people, but Congress must be informed on how the money is spent? Here, Reid demotes the responsibility of Congress to that of a junior accountant and leaves us wondering: just why do we need the GAO?
Later in the text we're assured that Sen. Reid really is on our side:
"Please be assured that I recognize that our country must change course in Iraq."
Phew! For a moment we thought a giant Harry Reid pod had developed overnight and sezied control of his body. "Change course!" That's what we need to do! Why didn't we think of that? How refreshing it is to hear Bush rhetoric from the leader of the Democratic Senate.
"You may be certain that under my leadership, Congress will conduct the necessary oversight over the war and support our troops in Iraq..."
Leadership, eh? Here it is again. The best we can do is crunch the numbers and wave an American flag.
Then comes our favorite: "The stakes are high, and failure in Iraq is not an option."
Don't you just love the sound of that? And coming from Las Vegas, we at the Populist Review can really appreciate a good gambling analogy when we hear it. I mean, who wants to lose when the stakes are high? "No one!" And that bit about "failure" not being an option. I wonder where he got that? Of course, without knowing the mission, without knowing the definition of "success" (other than the fact it's not failure), without knowing the duration of hostitlies, without knowing the scope of hostilities, without knowing the projected cost of hostilities, without knowing the projected number of casualties, without knowing the potential rewards that might be gained to offset the despicable carnage and devastation that's already charaterized this debacle, how could anyone possibly decide if "failure" is or isn't an option?
He concludes with a veiled promise to divert much-needed funds to (Halliburton?) to mop up Bush's train wreck while teasing us with the proven electoral carrot of troop withdrawals:
"Although the rebuilding process will take time, I look forward to steadily reducing our military presence in Iraq and bringing our troops home to their families."
Say what you will about the detriment of a third party, this country needs a Congress that will stand up to the Executive Branch. If the leader of the Democratic Senate has already conceded defeat, we have a moral obligation to support an alternative no matter how much the Democrats cry about fracturing the party. No party can disregard the will of its constituents and retain their hold on power. "Bringing our troops back home" has to become more than rhetoric. It must become a reality. Not just for the troops and their familes. But for the restoration of our beleaguered democracy.
Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net
Recent Comments