How the Democrats are supporting the troops
By Michael J.W. Stickings
On CBS's Face the Nation yesterday -- from Think Progress (which has the video and transcript) -- Speaker Pelosi argued that President should have to justify any troop increase in Iraq in order to receive any funding for it:
It is indeed "a war without end" and, in November, the American people "rejected" it. Bush and his warmongers, not to mention Republican supporters of the war generally, will no doubt accuse Pelosi and the Democrats of not supporting the troops. That'll be the spin to make Democrats look bad. But here's more of what Pelosi said:
The Democrats "support the troops who are there" and also support an overall increase in the size of the military. What they oppose is "a blank check" to let Bush "do whatever he wishes there". And what they're trying to do here is to re-establish a healthy balance of power between Congress and the White House.
And I would add this: How does it show support for the troops to send more of them over to fight in a war that is already lost, a war that has been a disaster and, in my view, a failure? How does it show support for the troops to throw more of them into the middle of a brutal civil war?
It seems to me that showing support for the troops means demanding accountability of those who put them in harm's way, of those who are sending them off to risk their lives for this disaster, this failure, this lost cause.
Yes, supporting the troops now means holding Bush accountable. Here's how Bob Geiger put it: "The days of Bush's absolute rule under a Republican Congress are over."
Finally.
(For more, see The Carpetbagger Report, The Agonist, CorrenteWire, and The Impolitic.)
On CBS's Face the Nation yesterday -- from Think Progress (which has the video and transcript) -- Speaker Pelosi argued that President should have to justify any troop increase in Iraq in order to receive any funding for it:
[I]f the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions. And we've gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.
It is indeed "a war without end" and, in November, the American people "rejected" it. Bush and his warmongers, not to mention Republican supporters of the war generally, will no doubt accuse Pelosi and the Democrats of not supporting the troops. That'll be the spin to make Democrats look bad. But here's more of what Pelosi said:
If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now. The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them.
The Democrats "support the troops who are there" and also support an overall increase in the size of the military. What they oppose is "a blank check" to let Bush "do whatever he wishes there". And what they're trying to do here is to re-establish a healthy balance of power between Congress and the White House.
And I would add this: How does it show support for the troops to send more of them over to fight in a war that is already lost, a war that has been a disaster and, in my view, a failure? How does it show support for the troops to throw more of them into the middle of a brutal civil war?
It seems to me that showing support for the troops means demanding accountability of those who put them in harm's way, of those who are sending them off to risk their lives for this disaster, this failure, this lost cause.
Yes, supporting the troops now means holding Bush accountable. Here's how Bob Geiger put it: "The days of Bush's absolute rule under a Republican Congress are over."
Finally.
(For more, see The Carpetbagger Report, The Agonist, CorrenteWire, and The Impolitic.)
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
7:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home