Wrong question, Democrats. What could Bush do, if you refused to fund this occupation?
Why not look at it this way:
By funding continuation of the occupation, what are you doing to the American military?
You are condemning more of our soldiers to death (not to mention all of the Iraqis who will die, too).
And for what?
Are we bringing peace to the region?
Has anything we’ve done in Iraq reduced the killing?
Oh, you can put forth arguments about how things would be worse without us… but what makes you think that? What have we done that gives any indication that we are part of the solution in Iraq and not part of the problem? What is the basis of your arrogant assumption that we are on the side of good there?
Bush says he’s going to keep the troops in Iraq, come hell (it’s already there) or high water. So not funding them would be hurting them.
That’s the argument, at least.
But does it make any sense? No.
Without money, the US troops will have to pull back. Without money, this chimeric “surge” would be abandoned. Without money, fewer Americans would die.
You can say I’m naïve, that it just doesn’t work like that.
I respond, on what basis can you say that? We know that the status quo in Iraq is a continued slide into chaos. We know that there’s no longer substance to the words “victory” and “success” as applied to Iraq. We know that the end of the “course” we are “staying” is simply a further course. There’s no positive outcome here, only more death.
We know this war has to end, and that the administration knows that, too… and is now only playing out the string, keeping things going until another administration takes over and has to deal with the consequences of defeat. We know that their cynicism will have only one outcome: more death.
Yet you, Congress, are willing to play along, lacking the stomach for the claims that you are ‘abandoning the troops.’
Yet you, Congress, will now let those same troops die.
We elected you for something else.
Your cowardice disgusts me.