Democrats Cave on Iraq-Nam Timetable

Back in November, the Democratic Party took both houses of Congress from the Republicans largely because the American people are tired of the war-without-end in Iraq-Nam. When the president had to come to Congress, cap in hand, to ask for more money to keep on fighting to protect the pro-Iranian government in Baghdad (quite contrary to American national interests), they had an opportunity to end the war by forcing the president to accept a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq-Nam. One presidential veto later, the Democrats in Congress have caved in on the timetable; the new war funding bill lacks one. The Democrats remain a party of collaboration rather than opposition.

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) summed up the official party line, “The practical reality now is, for now, those of us who want a change in course in Iraq don’t have the votes. I wish you could end it today. But I’m not going to vote to leave the troops without money.” This is, of course, simply not true. The money in the bill is to continue military operations in Iraq-Nam. If the funds were not appropriated, the troops would still get paid (that’s what the Pentagon budget is for), they would still get equipment for training, and they would still stand on guard for American liberty. They just couldn’t keep fighting in Iraq-Nam.

This would, naturally, result in a constitutional crisis. The Busheviks in all likelihood would simply divert other military funds to the Mesopotamian mess. Congress would then go to the Supreme Court, which would almost certainly (despite its composition) side with Congress. Failure to abide by that decision would be an impeachable offense, which should never be off the table with any administration. Impeachment is the ultimate sanction against a president or other federal officer who violates his oath to protect and defend the constitution.

As for not having the votes to end the war, Senator Biden and the other collaborators don’t need a single vote to stop the war. If a new appropriation of money isn’t made, that is the end of it. To continue the war, there must be a positive vote in Congress to give the president the authority to spend it on his war. No bill, no funding. No funding, well . . . .

What the Democrats in Congress fear is being blamed for “losing Iraq-Nam” by cutting off funding before the war can be won. Fear is a lousy basis for any public policy. The truth is that the Iraq-Namese government is not doing what it needs to do to establish its sovereignty, it is moving ever closer it Iran, and the people of Iraq-Nam don’t seem to want to defend it with their lives. The war is lost in the sense that Iraq-Nam will not be what the White House wanted it to become. So, who lost Iraq-Nam? It was never America’s to lose, no more than China was in 1949. If it is “lost,” the people who live there opted for that result because they didn’t want what America wanted for them (which is a sign of self-determination right there). There are better uses of America’s blood and treasure than fighting for a regime the Iraq-Namese don’t seem to want.

© 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