Today the NY Times ran a story asserting that the Democrats plan to “defy” the Bush Administration by attaching restrictions on torture, veterans’ benefits, and domestic unemployment funding to a war-funding bill Bush requested. The claim is that if Bush wants his war money, he will have to accept the attached measures as well. [Read NYT Story]
This is a lame attempt by the Democrats to make it seem that they are standing up to Bush, when in fact they are giving Bush all the war-funding he wants through the end of his term, and even several months into the next President’s administration.
Truly standing up to Bush would mean ending all funding for his occupation of Iraq (let’s not call it a war). The Democrats claim that they cannot simply stop all war funding because:
- it would put the troops at risk,
- it would make them look weak on defense in an election year, and
- they don’t have enough of a majority to override a presidential veto.
These are false excuses.
Cutting off funding would not put the troops at risk. The troops are already at risk in Iraq: 4075 have died and about 35 die every month they remain in Iraq. Cutting off funding would require bringing the troops home, away from risk. If Bush, as Commander in Chief, left the troops in Iraq without funding, he — not the Democrats — would be the one putting the troops at risk. Congress cutting off funds is how the Vietnam debacle ended, and is how the Iraq debacle should be ended.
Second, cutting off funding would not make the Democrats look weak in an election year. On the contrary; it would finally make them look strong! It would show that they have a spine. It would also express the will of the U.S. electorate: over seventy five percent of voters — of all political persuasions — want the U.S. out of Iraq. Yes, a few right-wing militarists, fundamentalist anti-Muslim wing-nuts, and oil-grabbing neo-cons want the U.S. to occupy Iraq forever, but they are such a tiny minority that they should simply be ignored, just as the U.S. ignored right-wingers who wanted the U.S. to side with Hitler against Stalin in WWII.
Third, the lack of a veto-proof majority is no excuse for continuing to fund the war. To exercise his veto, Bush must have something to veto. Congress should simply not send Bush any more war-funding bills, giving Bush nothing to veto.
Please, call your Democratic Representative today and ask — no, tell — her or him to stop funding the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq. No more war funding! Bring our troops home!
Find your representative’s phone number using this directory or the official directory of congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s phone numbers are: SF Office: 415/556-4862; DC Office: (202) 225-4965
Then We Have the Clueless Repubs
The Republicans deserve even more scorn than the Democrats. They attack the extra appropriations the Democrats have attached to the war-funding bill as “unnecessary”. They, like Bush, want the Democrats to pass the war-funding by itself and then separately request the other funding… which Bush would of course veto. In their twisted view, $70 billion in veterans’ education and domestic spending is wasteful, whereas $108 billion in war-funding is prudent and necessary.
Republicans need to learn the difference between an investment and an expense. When I blow $100 on a fancy dinner, that’s an expense. When I put $100 into my child’s education or double-pane windows on my house, that’s an investment that will yield a return.
Money for veterans’ education is an investment. The return is a more productive workforce and a higher living standard.
In contrast, almost all money spent on war is an expense. There is very little, if any, return on it. Aircraft, vehicles, and weapons costing millions of dollars are destroyed on a daily basis (ironically, they are called “durable goods” by economists).
The Iraq occupation is a particularly strong example of money thrown down a rat-hole: not only is Iraq in worse shape than it was before the U.S. invaded, the U.S. and the world are in worse shape too. Tens of thousands of our troops have been killed or wounded physically and psychically, reducing our nation’s productivity. Millions of Iraqis have been killed or wounded, and Iraq’s infrastructure is destroyed, creating lasting simmering hostility and destroying any chance of economic and political stability.
The Republicans want to throw more good money — and lives — down that stinking rat-hole?
Republicans accuse the Democrats of being “tax and spend liberals”. A good label for the Republicans is “borrow and blow”: they spend money we don’t have on expenses that have no return value, putting us in hock as a nation, depressing the dollar in world markets, and driving down our domestic economy.
The Republicans need to admit that Bush, even though he is from their party, is the worst President in U.S. history, and that almost nothing he has initiated deserves to be continued. John McCain, take note.
Related Previous PeacePundit Posts
- House Dems Assembling Biggest Iraq Spending Bill
- Sanders: Why the Democrats Aren’t Stopping the Iraq War
- Cuomo: Bush Doesn’t Have Authority to Declare War
- Cheney on Why Invading Iraq Would Be a Bad Idea
- Delusional or Liars? You Be The Judge
- One Day of Iraq War = $720 million