House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

Bush is not being asked to kill his wife. He is being asked to set a date for withdrawal of US troops. I am sorry you cannot see the difference.

 

Either date would be OK with me, but the GOP isn't saying "how about Feb. '08," they are saying "no date is going to be set."

You know as well as I do that this will not happen. The bill calls for the beginning of a pullout by October of '08 and Bush will not start until then. In early November, we get a new President and Congress and if America votes for a President and Congress that want to continue the war, Bush will leave the troops there (he is in charge of enforcing the laws) until the new person gets into the WH.

We are not "pulling the troops" right now, much less to "punish Bush," we are setting specific benchmarks to mark progress in Iraq.

Exactly. Measuring progress is an integral part in that process and that measurement is what this bill does.

We are giving the new general and the "surge" a year and a half to make some positive progress. If such progress is made, great! If not, we have a defined exit strategy that kicks in in 10/08.

The Congress is not "micromanaging," they are setting a deadline. Micromanaging would be looking over battle plans, tactics, and strategies and approving or denying those plans. None of that is being done.

If my boss tells me to get something done by a certain date, that is her job and she is duty-bound to do it, just as the Congress is duty-bound to oversee the President. If she then comes into my office and tells me HOW to get the job done, that is micromanaging, but setting a deadline is her job.

What exactly has precluded them up until now? Presumably they have been free to follow their own strategy free of oversight and deadlines. That has not worked, so it is time to set a deadline for our actions in Iraq.

Everyone in the real world has deadlines. Bush should not be an exception.

 

Sure it does. The only other option being presented to the Congress is the "trust me" approach that Bush has used for six years.

That dog won't hunt any more.

 

Yes, they do. We are providing them and will continue to provide them even if our combat troops leave.

 

If Clinton had already asked for $400 billion to feed the poor and it was not at all evident that there was any progress whatsoever towards the goal of feeding the poor, I would fully support benchmarks that would measure the progress being made and if no progress was made, I would support a sunset provision in the bill that would take that program off the table.

The "anti-abortion provisions" is a bad example since abortion and poverty are not directly related like the Iraq appropriation and the war in Iraq are.

 

The true point is that this may be a problem without a military solution. That is why we are setting a deadline for the beginning of a removal of combat troops. If Iraq can't or won't get it together politically, then we should withdraw from their civil war.

 

The long term consequences were sealed the minute that Bush sent troops into Iraq.

It is incumbent on us to do our best to get Iraq's military on their feet, which we have presumably been working towards, but it is not for us to fight their civil war for them. With this bill, we have 18 months to train up their military to take over. At that point, the only US troops should be advisers and trainers.

 

Eighteen months is a long enough time frame to accomplish nearly anything.

Congress is not "legislating battlefield strategy." They are not telling anyone how to fight the war, how to train the Iraqi army, or how to root out insurgents. They are starting a countdown and that is a good thing. It is what they were elected to do.

 

andy, is it possible that your dislike for bush is clouding your judgement about this situation?

i think you underestimate the complexities of the task at hand.

regardless of political affiliation, i just think the risks of iraq being left unable to effectively run/defend itself greatly outweigh any benefits of bringing troops home a year or two earlier.

 

I don't believe so. It is my dislike for our troops being in a situation that I see as militarily unwinnable that colors my judgment in this case.

I will take those risks as opposed to continuing to give the current leadership the same blank check that they have had for four years. For four years now, the situation in Iraq has continued to devolve. It is time to start the clock and in doing so announce to the Iraqis that it is time for them to get their s*** together.

That has nothing to do with Bush. It has everything to do with the way this war has been run and I would have the same problem no matter who was running it.

 

These statements are contradictory since they rely on the assumption that 18 months is the amount of tme needed to accomplish it. What if the strategy takes 19 months? Part of battlefield strategy is to determine the time it takes to achieve objectives and weigh that with logistics. Both you and Congress are dictating battlefield strategy by presuming that 18 months is the proper time frame. That is a tactical decision.

Again I might agree with you that we should be planning our withdrawl and 18 months sounds like a good number but the President is still the President and is empowered by the Constitution to make tactical decisions like that. If Congress wants to end it then end it completely rather than tinker with a tactical decision.

 

fair enough. Although i would like to think that this is more than just about winning militarily

but again, you are basically arguing over a couple/few months. Bush is gone next year regardless of what happens.

exactly.

 

the infamous "polls" rear their ugly head.

 

So it is all about politics, not finding the best solution for this Iraq mess.

 

So you agree this 18 month deadline thing might not be the best Iraq solution, but rather just a political move on the Dem side.

 

The problem is that the Constitution has granted the President the power to maintain a military campaign as long as Congress has authorized it even in the face of lack of public support. If Congress and the public wants it stopped the answer is to rescind the authorization. The problem with what Congress is doing is that they aren't rescinding the authorization but both setting conditions on it that interfere with the Commander and Chief powers. They are taking partial steps that IMO don't meet Constitutional muster.

Obviously some might disagree with me on this but in an era when the Constitution is being abused by the executive I would rather not see it abused by the Legislative also.

For that matter there is Constitutional check granted to the public on the power of the Executive which is the election, in this case GW Bush isn't going to stand again but the public has the opportunity to weigh in directly by voting for a President who will withdraw the troops.

 

American public doesn't get to run the war, they elected a president to do that. If they want to withdraw the troops, they can vote in someone else next time.