Iraq War Funding: “Compromise” or “Sellout”?

[babylonsister]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/22/1366/

Iraq War Funding: “Compromise” or “Sellout”?
by Robert Naiman

“Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops,” AP reports. The article notes that “details remain subject to change,” but says that the bill “would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year,” implying that there would be no meaningful restriction on the President’s request.

snip//

And there are two troubling questions here.

First: why is the overall funding level set in stone? The supplemental is purportedly to cover the period until September 30, the end of the fiscal year. Even if one accepted the idea of no limitation of the war before September 30, why is $100 billion necessary for this purpose? This has never been explained. If $100 billion were truly necessary for this purpose, that would mean that the rate of war spending was doubling compared to last year. A far more plausible explanation is that the supplemental is not intended to carry the war to September 30, but well beyond that. If the aim of the Congressional leadership is to revisit the issue in the fall, why provide funding well beyond that?

Second: on May 17 the House passed the defense authorization for 2008, “The bill includes $142 billion in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,” but “does not require troop withdrawals or place restrictions on the war,” AP reported that day. If the intent of the House leadership on the FY 2008 authorization is that passage on May 17 was the last word on the matter, it’s hard to reconcile that with a plan of revisiting the issue of the war in the fall.

If the House leadership is absolutely determined not to fight further for any restriction on the war in this round, and cannot be shaken from this position, then the the questions of the funding level and the 2008 authorization should be immediately revisited. Regarding the latter, while the 2008 defense authorization has passed the House, it hasn’t passed the Senate, and unless the Senate passes it in exactly the same form - an unlikely prospect - the House can have another bite at the apple.

It’s one thing to withdraw from the field with the intention of fighting another day. It’s quite another thing to blow up your arsenal.

[atreides1]

1. Surrender, Plain and Simple

Compromise=settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.

There was no mutual concession here, Bush got exactly what he wanted and will probably get more when the defense authorization for 2008 gets to the Senate.

I predict that once again the Senate will gut or cut back most of the positive parts for the troops and veterans, and Bush will get another "Clean" bill.

[Double T]

2. Another Democratic SELLOUT. 'WE' have a failed system of government.......

regardless of which party is in the majority.

[mike_c]

3. utter, utter sellout-- and acceptance of complictity in crimes against humanity....

:puke: