Michael Kinsley: The Troop Funding Trap (this is a good one)

[Sparkly]

And woe betide any politician who suggests that waiting for complete triumph might not be the only alternative -- just in case democracy, prosperity, peace and brotherhood don't flower in Iraq next week. Sens . Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed the war-funding bill because it lacked even the mealy-mouthed timetables in an earlier version that Bush vetoed.

For this they got crocodile tears from Sen. John McCain. Squandering a bit more of his war-hero capital, McCain came close to accusing the two leading Democratic presidential candidates of treason: "I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender." Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, with no known foreign policy expertise or even interest (unless you count his "mission" to France after college, trying to convert the French to Mormonism), attributed Clinton's and Obama's votes to "an inexperienced worldview on national security."

(snip)

But what happens if you, as a member of Congress, do attempt to use the power of the purse? Sens. Clinton, Obama and Chris Dodd (also running for president) voted against the final Iraq funding bill because all meaningful deadlines and timetables had been stripped out so that President Bush would sign it. That Wall Street Journal editorial accuses these three Democratic senators of "vot(ing) to undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission." If this is true of last week's vote, it will always be true of any attempt to cut off a war by cutting off funds. Unless the Journal is in favor of undermining U.S. troops, this makes the alleged "power of the purse" unusable.

Advocates of the current war who enjoy the spectacle of war opponents caught in this trap of laws and logic had better hope that every military action a president chooses to engage in from here on out is as wonderful to them as is the war in Iraq. Because there is nothing war-specific about this line of argument. It would work just as well on an invasion of Canada or an aerial bombardment of Portugal. The president can do it if he wants to, and no one can legitimately stop him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102169.html

Well worth reading!!!

[Kagemusha]

1. I agree, well worth reading

This is not a dilemma that was invented with the election of Sen. Clinton. It's been around for a while. It's like every single day, I appreciate more and more why Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't invade countries with the indifference that the current Bush did; they had much more leeway than they actually saw fit to use, employing discretion in office. All it took was a guy with a chip on his shoulder to demonstrate the problem that was simply - and more wisely - left unexploited by predecessors.

[Cassandra]

2. I loved this in the comments...

"
filmex wrote:
The Bush Crime Family has engaged in a endless circle-jerk of sophistry.

We have to push on in Iraq because Al Qaeda is there, even though Al Qaeda is there because we pushed into Iraq.

Our troops have to keep dying there because our troops have been dying there, and to stop needlessly killing our kids is to dishonor the kids we have needlessly killed so far.

We have to stay so the enemy doesn’t know we’re leaving. Osama hasn’t been found because he’s hiding.

Someone give them a tissue and cigarette for gawd's sake. If they haven't finished by this point, they never will, and someone else wants to rent the room."

[ProSense]

3. Congress needs to stand up to Bush

The WSJ is spinning this as a trap, but the trap would be the one Congress sets for Bush. The power of the purse is a legislative tool for checking the executive branch.