Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Time to quit letting the Republican chickenhawks frame the debate

on the war in Iraq.

A post on this issue has been percolating around the ol' synapses for a while, but today, jobsanger in Texas had an excellent post on the trend of Democrats "wussing out" on forcing Bush to end the war. It helped crystallize my thoughts on the topic.


For months now, many 'big-name' Democrats have given the Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, something of a 'free pass' on Iraq -

The consistently blame the Iraqis for the mess, and place the onus for withdrawal on the Iraqi government. They have to meet 'benchmarks' before our troops can leave.

This is completely wrong and utterly shameless.


Let's be clear here - this mess is *completely* our fault.

We started the war on a false pretense (OK - let's call it what it was - an out-and-out lie), we totally screwed up the 'peace', and we won't leave, even when it's obvious that the only purpose American troops have there is to serve as targets of opportunity.

Well, there is another purpose - protect the interests of corporations that are making billion$ off of no-bid contracts to "rebuild" Iraq or are trying to reap profits from Iraq's natural resources.


Now, much of that deception and corruption occured on the watch of a Republican-controlled Congress; but now that the Democrats hold a majority of seats in Congress (and many of the winning candidates in last year's elections campaigned on getting out of Iraq), things must have changed, right?

Ehhhh, not so much.

With a few notable exceptions, prominent Democrats have bought into the mindset that the Iraqis created this mess; acceptance of responsibility for the war and criticism of Bush is muted.

Barack Obama -
Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.


Nancy Pelosi talks of holding "the Iraqi government accountable to meet the President’s benchmarks for progress."

Even our own Harry Mitchell states that "it is essential that Congress and the Administration work together to establish benchmarks in the areas of security, reconstruction and governance..."

Many others are just as wishy-washy; I just picked a few of the bigger names.

Enough.

"Benchmarks" is a euphemism for "let's not admit our responsibility and learn from our mistakes." Nothing more than that.

More Democrats should join the likes of Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and John Edwards in publicly urging a complete withdrawal from Iraq.

To that end, I urge everyone to contact their Congresscritters to support passage of a new Iraq funding bill with a timeline for withdrawal.

Cut the pork out (except for $ to bolster VA medical facilities and services) to address one of his official reasons for vetoing the original bill, but LEAVE THE TIMELINE IN.

If Bush wants to play partisan politics with such a bill and to veto it, so be it. Let him take the heat on that 2nd veto.

And if he does veto it, give him yet another bill, just with a tighter deadline.

If he keeps vetoing, keep passing a bill that funds the war, with a deadline for withdrawal; with each succeeding veto, tighten the deadline. Start throwing in other restrictions, too, like ending the ability of the Department of Defense to award 'no-bid' contracts.

Eventually, he'll start paying attention when he realizes that the Democrats aren't going to appease him.


To those of you who object to my saying that this mess is "our" responsibility - whether or not we agreed with the war or with our Congresscritters' votes for/against it, it was undertaken in our name (superficially, anyway.) The mess *is* ours.

Welcome to democracy.

Later!

No comments: