The Progressive: No Time for Compromise on Iraqi Withdrawal

[IndyOp]

The Democrats must stand strong against the current of compromise that is swirling around Washington concerning the funding of the Iraq War.

After Bush’s veto, there has already been lots of talk on Capitol Hill about crafting an acceptable bill.

But no bill is acceptable that continues funding for this war and this occupation.

The American people want out, the U.S. soldiers want out, and the Iraqis are demanding that we leave. A majority of Iraqis think it’s acceptable to kill Americans there. We can’t win that way.

<snip>

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer expects a new bill to pass in the House in two weeks and to become law by Memorial Day. “We’re not going to leave our troops in harm’s way . . . without the resources they need,” he said.

But resources for what?

For continuing the occupation?

Or for getting the hell out of there?

http://progressive.org/mag_wx050207

[bryant69]

1. Well if it's standing strong for immediate withdrawal

The Democrats haven't been standing strong since the beginning. They never seriously put that on the table.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bigtree]

2. cute, but progressive.org doesn't have a viable coalition in Congress

to effect their proposal to 'defund the war'.

Further, that act of sitting on their hands and voting 'no' would direct Bush to do NOTHING and would leave the troops already in harm's way at the will and whim of whatever Bush and the generals cobble together as they continue to limp them along. The 'defunding' proposal assumes the same cretins who've tolerated 3400 deaths would take notice of suffering troops and remove them from jeopardy.

How can these folks justify the leaving of troops in Iraq who may have begun to withdrawal as a result of a compromise, just because they wouldn't accept a bill containing everything they want? The troops will remain in Iraq, possibly until January 2009 if there is no compromise.

[IndyOp]

3. Bush has funding to continue his illegal, immoral, bloody occupation through end of August,

and if the Pentagon could go to the bother of finding the 2 TRILLION dollars they've "misplaced" they have MORE THAN enough money to safely withdraw troops from Iraq and to fund other countries in the region who are willing and able to work on political solutions.

How, by the way, do you know that the ANY of the money in this funding bill will go to the troops? How does any of us know whether this money will be used to attack Iran? To pay for new bases in Australia or Africa? To expand the base in Italy? To put new weapons near Russia?

[bigtree]

4. yet, these 'progressives' expect Bush to engineer and direct all of that money to our troops

and veterans and provide them with the support and resources they need. If you want to redirect Bush from all of that and expect him to respond, you need to do more than vote 'no'. Otherwise, you're doing even less to influence Bush's behavior than those the article is criticizing.

I fail to see why some don't want our legislators to legislate. There are no guarantees, but I certainly expect our legislators to do more than just sit on their hands.