Originally Posted by cmitch
You can oppose the war and still support the troops. How would any of you war oppositionists like to be a member of the military knowing the funding rug was fixing to get yanked out from underneath you, all because the war has become politicized, instead of a true exit strategy being planned. If you left wingers, who so hate our presence in Iraq, would step up to the plate and present plans for real exit strategies instead of using our soldiers as tools of threat for pulling funding, you would be assured a win of the White House in 2008.
I recognize the following:
1. Our presence in Iraq is not doing us any good with foreign relations.
2. Our reasons for being there have proven to be questionable, at best.
But what are we supposed to do? Cut and run like we did in Somalia? Become an example and further proof that we truly are the 'paper tiger' bin Hiden has so labeled us? We would do much more irrepairable harm if we leave without finishing the job! I say we escalate the number of troops, get the job done, NOW and THEN, get the fuck out and not a minute before some sort of stability has been put in place. We created the mess, now we must clean it up. You guys propose we leave the garbage behind for al Queida and other terrorist organizations to come in and scrounge off of, furthering their purpose! Some plan!
What's going on in Iraq is not pretty. War isn't pretty. War shouldn't be pasted across the screens of our televisions each and every day because it is not for the weak of stomachs and shallow resolves. Every day a road block is placed in front of the troops is another day they have to stay there. Why can't anybody see that??
I agree with the basic desire you have expressed. No American wants an ignominious retreat. But, some of the keys to the problem are described in your own words, not the least of which is we don't really know why we are there.
The President has had his way without any resistance to speak of on this war he started in Iraq since 9-11-2001. All the evidence we can gather is always in hindsight since this President has been exceedingly secretive concerning the strategy, the planning and the execution of his Iraq invasion. Congress and the public are routinely given the MAD Magazine character's "What me worry?" response to any and all , especially when the reports from the field are negative. The view generated by this gathering of hindsight-only evidence depicts this President's ability to gather and interpret intelligence, gather diverse inputs and formulate a coherent strategy, gather diverse inputs and formulate practical, executable plans, and respond effectively to bad news or setbacks as entirely inadequate. As a result, we find ourselves in a situation, as Americans, where those in charge of the prosecution of this post Iraq invasion chaos appear to be overwhelmed by the task and are now reduced to bumbling and fumbling from one day to the next, and unwilling to step back and invite outsiders in to bring new ideas, such as developing an exit strategy.
Based on the elections, the American people have lost confidence in Bush, and have demanded more oversight and involvement from Congress. Given the President's disposition to hold his cards close, which continues today, Congress was given no voluntary opening to act in the interests of the people of the United States.
This left a Congress with little other than the power of the purse to try to force the President to come to the table and openly discuss details of the quagmire he has created for the United States, and listen to new ideas on ways to formulate an acceptable exit strategy. Much of the lack of support for this quagmire in Iraq is due to the lack of effort by the President to build consensus and get buy-in based on something other than flag waving, calling those who question him traitors, or just faggots.
So, this problem is turning into a showdown of Constitutional powers. And Bush is every bit as responsible for forcing the Congress to with hold funds as anyone in Congress is for proposing it or voting for it.
One of the other pleas you make that cannot be answered is for the Democrats to come up with an alternate plan. The minute development of such a plan was carried forward, there would be a great deal of screaming and crying by those presently in the Bush Administration and their supporters, and all of it justified. Any effective plan would have to involve our allies and some of the other players in the area who don't count as our allies. Soliciting their input outside the Bush Administration could not be tolerated, and they would be unlikely to participate knowing that, so the cry for the Dems to do something like that is just unrealistic. And anything short of a real, detailed plan with buy-in from everyone involved is just more bullshit political posturing. We don't need anymore of that, especially now.
I think if the President were to ask for help developing such an alternate to consider, he would be well served. For the Dems to do it on their own is off base - there can only be one government of the United States, and one voice to the outside world authorized to make commitments for the US government. Jim