Serious people now dislike the war
I haven't done all the reading on this, but at first blush it sounds more like a reprimand to Bush than any sort of binding legislation.
Of course, this legislation would allow Republicans to vote against Bush, but not really vote for change. (How do you enforce a "requirement" to narrow the mission?)
Two prominent Senate Republicans have drafted legislation that would require President Bush by mid-October to come up with a plan to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.....
"Given continuing high levels of violence in Iraq and few manifestations of political compromise among Iraq's factions, the optimal outcome in Iraq of a unified, pluralist, democratic government that is able to police itself, protect its borders, and achieve economic development is not likely to be achieved in the near future," the Warner-Lugar proposal said.
Of course, this legislation would allow Republicans to vote against Bush, but not really vote for change. (How do you enforce a "requirement" to narrow the mission?)
posted by mikevotes at
2:23 PM
4 Comments:
You're right. I don't see this as a revolt in the ranks. More a sop to unhappy constituents.
By
Anonymous, at 3:05 PM
I think a whole lot of them don't like what's going on, but they're trapped.
That 25% or whatever that still support the war are all Republicans. If you figure 33% identify as Republicans, that means that more than half of their party supporters are still prowar.
Now, if you get into red states, or red congressional districts, you figure that number jumps a bit, so the majority of their party supports the war, but the majority of voters don't.
So, if Iraq is the only issue, they can't win reelection without their Republican support, but, in alot of the cases, the antiwar support is enough to beat them.
So, they try to find a middle ground somehow.
By
mikevotes, at 4:09 PM
I find it amusing how all of the slimy congressmen want to always put this all on President Bush.
If they want to end the war, they can do it. All they need to do is eliminate funding and demand withdrawal, as constitutionally the President can't wage war on his own indefinitely. He can only go to war temporarily without their approval. It's called balance of power. At this point, Bush would veto their bill, and then if the Congress had any guts to act according to what they say, they could override the veto regardless of the handful of Congressmen who claim to support the war.
You already know that Bush will stay the course, and he doesn't give a damn what you think. He doesn't seem to care what is popular. I would surmise he only wants to make it to the end of his term without enduring another major attack on U.S. soil, and that is why he stays the course, letting Iraq act as a lightening rod.
I would guess Republicans in Congress probably want to end the war more than the Democrats, because without the war, Democrats have only one other issue, which is global warming, and Republicans seem to have rolled over on that one too.
Cindy Sheehan finally understands the situation, which is why she's attempting her Quixotic attack on Nancy Pelosi's seat.
All of the efforts by peaceniks to undermine Bush's policy should go toward getting Congress to act rather than sending out hate messages against Bush.
Bush won't quit fighting the war unless Congress passes legislation that forces him to do so, and all this BS about impeachment will come to nothing. In the first thing, there has to be a crime, not just a disagreement. Then again, that's what all their rhetoric leads to anyway: just playing to the people in the cheap seats who can't see what is really happening in Congress.
By
Wes, at 11:34 AM
Wes, a more more rational comment so I'll respond. They're putting it on Bush because he's "the commander guy." He has repeatedly ignored everyone else, making this war and this policy his.
As for cutting funding, yes, in theory, that would be the way to do it, but regardless of everything else, they need 60 votes in the Senate just to get it to a veto, and for whatever reason, that's not there.
I think your analysis of Bush's motives is fairly right on, although I'm not so sure about staying in Iraq as a lightning rod. The Pakistani based Al Qaeda would rather hit us here, but he is definitely not pulling out.
I would argue the Dems have many more issues, but none as clear and powerful as Iraq.
And, in my opinion, Cindy Sheehan quit because she wasn't the focal point anymore. As antiwar came mainstream, the movement centered away from her.
And I don't think I mentioned impeachment. I don't know why you got off on that?
By
mikevotes, at 3:55 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home