That would be a valid statement if I was trying to spin the war funding debate the way the Bush White House has been trying to spin it. Since I am not, so I guess I will retract it.
But back to the main point, Bush has vetoed the democratic version of the supplemental spending bill that would fully fund Bush's war in Iraq.
What is interesting about this whole Iraq funding mess is: The democrats fully funded Bush's request, no quibbling at all. The only progress markers the Democrats included in the bill are the ones Bush himself outlined, no additional demands at all. The only thing that is purely democratic in orgin is the timeline, and that is at the demand of the American people who voted them into power.
Bush's biggest complaint seems to be that the Democrats took him seriously when he outlined the steps that the Iraqi government needed to take to move forward.
So we are back to the starting point, and at this time I can see only 3 real options presented.
1. Follow the Bush - McCain plan, and play Wack-A-Mole in Iraq for the next couple of generations.
2. Do the job right. Find 600,000 to 750,000 trained and armed troops, find a spare 500,000,000.00 a year to fund it, then move into Iraq a force that can impose some form of peace
3. Get the heck out of dodge.
And remember, if you pick option 1, at some point in time you will still have to pick either 2 or 3.
This is a fact, that is obvious to so many, is something that the Bush administration refuses to address.
4 comments:
VETO BUSH - or in other words, IMPEACH!
"find a spare 500,000,000.00 a year to fund it"
Huh???!
The war in Iraq costs about $500 million every 3 days. I think you mean find a spare $100 BILLION per year (that's $100,000,000,000.00).
See www.costofwar.com
Oh, if you meant you wanted to fund 750k soldiers, then it would be $500 billion per year, not $100 billion (and certainly not $500 million).
Yep... I left three zeros off.
My bad, thanks for noticing
Post a Comment