Reaffirming Bin Laden's statement "America has not the will to fight. They are a paper tiger"; the U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday to leave a definitive date for withdrawal in Iraq in the war spending bill. "We have to change course. Today's vote takes us a step closer," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The terms "change course" and "new direction" have been the war cry (no pun intended) of the Democratic party since before the 2006 election. Although most of us do not disagree with the Democrats when they say the war has been mismanaged, many people in this country still believe a victory in Iraq is vital to national security.
The Democratic leadership themselves have acknowledged the absurdity of setting a deadline for troop withdrawal, not so much in actual words as in their actions. In order to gain support for this bill the Democrats included billions of dollars in pork barrel spending, forcing Senators to decide if a vote for withdrawal was more important than additional funds for their State.
Included in the bill:
- $3 million for funding for sugar cane (goes to one Hawaiian co-op).
- $20 million for insect infestation damage reimbursements in Nevada, Idaho, and Utah.
- $6 million for North Dakota flooded crop land.
- $2 million for the University of Vermont
- $1.5 billion for livestock production losses.
- $2.1 billion for crop production losses.
Click here to see the full list of spending
It is imperative for the Democrats' 2008 presidential campaign that Bush's war in Iraq is a complete and utter failure, and they are doing everything in their power to ensure exactly that. The Pentagon has declared they need the emergency funding by April 15th to avoid having to make cutbacks in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate will take a final vote before the Easter recess Thursday but is not expected to reconcile its version with the House bill until both chambers are in session April 16. At that point, President Bush will veto the bill, sending it back to the House to draft new legislation (enough support to overturn the veto seems highly unlikely). This will delay funding even longer.
Article comments
1 - Bryan King
Facts: Congress holds the power to declare and FINANCE war. It is also charged with communicating the views and guarding the interests of 'the people'. Congress also decides what is and is not within the scope of the President's 'war powers'. Finally, Congress certainly has the right and ability to end a war by revoking authorization. If Congress wants this thing over and done, it reflects the popular will and if the President doesn't listen, Congress may exercise its prerogative and compel him.
2 - Dave Nalle
Congress may exercise its prerogative and compel him.
They don't have to votes to override a veto, even with all the pork bribery included in the bill.
Dave
3 - Lee Richards
Charles,
Help us out with your second paragraph: How does a mismanaged war lead to a victory? And how do you define and measure victory in a complex, unstable, unconventional and ever-evolving type of warfare?
I don't disagree that Congress is fumbling around, playing politics, and largely ignoring the Constitution. What's funny, though, is that Bush has been doing all three for four years now, but you seem to think that he should continue to have a tactical green light, so Bin Laden--whom Bush has forgotten about--can't call us names.
4 - Southerner
"Although most of us do not disagree with the Democrats when they say the war has been mismanaged..."
"Most of us" who?
If you mean most of us 'Americans' then you would be incorrect my friend... poll after poll shows that the American public not only thinks that the war is mismanaged, but they want our troops home as soon as possible...
If on the contrary you mean delusional neconservatives, who want war without end... then you are probably correct...
5 - Southerner
Ignore that last comment... too much coffee this morning... Carry on.
6 - Joem
The outcome of the war will have a significant impact on the upcoming election. A lot of political videos and opinions have been addressed to the war efforts. The cand8iates have also spoken at length about their plans for the war.
7 - ScooterHancock
Thanks for the interesting article, Charles!
But I think you misquoted the constitution when you said: "The United States Constitution declares the President to be Commander In Chief of our armed forces, with ultimate responsibility for all tactical decisions resting on his shoulders.".
The reference you gave says: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;".
Nothing about tactical decisions.
Were you gilding the lily when you added a duty?
Being CinC doesn't give the pres. sole responsibility for ending a war any more than it gives him sole responsibility for starting a war.
My personal reading of the constitution, Federalist Papers, etc., suggests that the pres was designed as a Chief Executive in charge of carrying out orders (laws) from congress, not an independent operator who had to coerce congress into providing means for his policies.
8 - Charles
Scooter,
I was not quoting the Constitution, I was paraphrasing when i said "Commander In Chief of our armed forces", and my statment of "with ultimate responsibility for all tactical decisions resting on his shoulders" is my personal interpretation of what 'Commander In Chief" means.
9 - ScooterHancock
Your "personal interpretation". Oh. I see.
In the future, how can I tell what is truth and what is your "personal interpretation" in a statement you make? You wouldn't want me to mistake your "personal interpretation" for fact, would you?
10 - Clavos
In the future, how can I tell what is truth and what is your "personal interpretation" in a statement you make?
Which one of your multiple personalities would even recognize the truth, Bliffscootmethushuber?
And how does each of them define "truth?"
It's all relative, Sybil.
11 - MCH
So is he worse than Vox Populi?
12 - Zedd
Dumb!