The War At Home
The battle over the war between the White House and Congress is continuing apace.
The House and Senate are working to finalize their military funding legislation with a mandate for a phased withdrawal. The final bill will look like this-
[It] would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces to begin by Oct. 1, even earlier if Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in disarming militias, reducing sectarian violence and forging political compromises.
Another provision in the measure would withhold about $850 million in foreign aid funds from the Iraqis if the government does not meet those standards.
Also, the Pentagon would be required to adhere to certain standards for the training and equipping of units sent to Iraq, and for their rest at home between deployments. Bush could waive the guidelines if necessary. Democrats assume he would, but want him on record as doing so.
Under the nonbinding timeline, all combat troops would be withdrawn by April 1, 2008.
After that date, U.S. forces would have a redefined and restricted mission of protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, engaging in counterterrorism activities against al-Qaida and other similar organizations and training and equipping Iraqi forces.
It is, obviously, headed toward a veto from President Bush.
Moreover, the President got all Orwellian in his speech reiterating this, insisting that, in electing a Democratic congress which campaigned on winding down the war and rebuking this failed President, what the American people really voted for in November was his (unpopular) new escalation strategy. Foolproof logic, natch.
(You can also expect the usual rhetoric about 'surrender' and 'hurting the troops'.)
What comes after the veto, though? Do the Democrats push harder? Or cave?
Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall recently spoke with Sen. Kerry about that very question. Kerry's answer wasn't very specific, but he did say they will keep pushing one way or another. In 2008, he added, voters can express where they stand on this.
That's, of course, a silent acknowledgement that nothing can stop Bush's war until 2009.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home