Reply #13: funding is NOT about "supporting the troops"

[welshTerrier2]

to follow-up on my last post, the failure of the Democrats on the last Iraq funding bill started long before they caved in.

Every single Democrat should have talked to the American people about WHY they were not going to allow a bill without conditions to come to the Senate floor.

The WHY is really very simple. There is absolutely no way that American troops occupying Iraq can make any progress to bring peace or stability to Iraq. It's not that they aren't doing all they can, it's that the situation has long since been impossible. The bottom line? It makes ZERO SENSE to continue to provide funding for an occupation that cannot possibly succeed. Period!

The Democrats should have VERY PUBLICALLY taken that case to the American people years ago and they should be saying it each and every day that passes. If there are concerns about "funding the troops", that's fine. Democrats should have brought a bill that provides every single penny the troops in Iraq could possibly need to make the safest and most rapid withdrawal but there should not have been a single penny to continue offensive operations.

The problem with the Democrats, and the reason the left is so angry with them, is that they either don't agree that leaving is the only policy that makes sense or they totally failed to make a public case saying so. Instead, they cowered in their corner in their little triangulating way and let bush frame the issue. Again, this should never have been a debate about "supporting the troops."; it should have been a debate about whether throwing good money after bad and continuing a policy that never made sense and certainly is seen by almost all as a total failure should receive any further funding.

You used the phrase "high risk strategy". In my view, doing exactly what the Democrats did was a high risk strategy. It was also a horrible policy choice. And it was a choice. I thought the Democrats were going to sail to large majorities next year because bush has clearly been the worst jackass to ever occupy the White House. Now, speaking of high risk strategies, I'm not so sure. At a time where the Democrats are putting so much emphasis on "not appearing weak", they've appeared very weak. Sometimes it takes real strength and courage to wage peace; the Party's triangulators apparently will never learn that lesson. They're all still stuck in the 1972 McGovern campaign. They think waging war "gives Americans confidence" that they are tough enough to lead; the polls after that last Iraq vote say otherwise. Will they ever learn?