Point one: when sanctions were imposed upon Iraq after the first Gulf
War, Iraqi children began starving. But we did not blame
ourselves. After all, it was Mr. Saddam Hussein who chose to
spend money on more palaces, rather than on feeding the children.
It was not our fault, that he did not spend his money wisely,
after his source of funding was reduced.
Fast forward to today, and consider point two: Currently, the US and
its Congress are debating whether to reduce funding for the military
effort. Some people object, saying that would leave troops
with out armor, without necessary equipment and supplies.
They say it would be unpatriotic.
I say that is a bogus argument. If funding is cut, the
Commander in Chief has a choice to make. He can leave the
troops in harms way, without adequate supplies, or he can bring them
home.
A vote to cut funding for the war is not a vote against the troops, any
more than the sanctions against Iraq were a vote against the children
of Iraq.
- Log in to post comments
Wrong, wrong and cowardly.
Why wrong? As you point out, Hussein is the one who chose to misspend the available money; there should have been enough to ensure Iraqis were fed. But you posit a reduction in funding such that continuing the occupation is, in practice, impossible.
Why else wrong? Funding requests are reasonably descriptive about what they pay for. Congress could cut military R&D funding without cutting money earmarked for ongoing operations. If they deny a request to pay, feed or outfit soldiers in Iraq, it clearly does become a vote against the troops.
Why cowardly? If Congress wants the US military out of Iraq, they can rescind the AUMF. Trying to pin the choice on the President is a transparent way to avoid that responsibility.
Point one: I do propose a reduction in funding, but that would not make it impossible. After all, they still have at least ten billion dollars, unaccounted for, lying around somewhere. That would buy then a couple of months to get out.
You are correct in saving that appropriations bills are specific in what the fund, but the Administration has been known to use funds appropriated for one purpose, and direct them to another. The President would still have choices. They just would not be very attractive ones.
There is no meaning to the phrase "trying to pin the choice on the President." It is his choice. He's the Decider. He's the Commander-in-Chief. He's the one who started this war. Clearly it is his choice. There is no need to "pin" anything on him.
I agree that Congress could rescind the AUMF, but I am not sure that would change anything. The President seems to think he is above the law anyway.
Stopping the war by cutting the funding is hardly cowardly. In fact, it would be politically risky.
You make an interesting point, but given what we know about George W. Bush, isn't it akin to criminal negligence to expect him to make a wise choice?