House Debates Iraq-Nam War

Yesterday, the House of Representatives opened debate on the following: “CONCURRENT RESOLUTION. Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That — (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.” There will be a vote on Friday. It’s about time.

The resolution is a non-binding slap on the wrist to the White House. However, there is a vote that will follow to fund the wars in Iraq-Nam and Afghanistan that will do much more than express the sense of the House. As Congressman James P. Moran, Jr. (D-VA) said, this resolution is “only the bark. The real bite comes with the spending bill.” Mr. Bush needs $100 billion to continue losing his wars, and he’ll get it only with strings attached.

Democratic congressional leaders plan to add four conditions, according to the Washington Post: “Soldiers and Marines could be deployed to Iraq only after being certified as fully trained and equipped. National Guardsmen and reservists could be subject to no more than two deployments, or roughly 12 months of combat duty. The administration could use none of the money for permanent bases in Iraq. And additional funding for the National Guard and reserves must be spent to retool operations at home, such as emergency response.”

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH) has said the non-binding resolution, “is the first step in the Democrats’ plan to cut off funding for American troops who are in harm’s way, and their leaders have made this abundantly clear.” Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) said the Democratic leaders will be “tying the hands of commander in chief and commander on the ground” if they move ahead with their plans.

Sometimes, someone has to yell “stop!” The troops in harm’s way shouldn’t be there. They are propping up a Shi’ite regime that ultimately will answer to Iran, and that will ultimately fall completely under the sway of Moqtada al-Sadr, the Khomeini of Iraq-Nam. Just how the US troops are advancing US interests in Iraq-Nam is hard to say. Cutting off all funding sounds bad, like the troops won’t be able to get bus fare home. But all it means is no more money can be spent getting US military personnel killed needlessly – a poor investment to say the least. Congress needs to accept that the only way to support the troops now is to bring them home. If that means tying the president’s hands, get the rope.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home