Nice Try...
From the World's Greatest Cut&Paste newssource, YahooNews:
You'd think the Bush Administration was going to have a heart attack when they heard the news:
But really, don't believe the hype on either side. Why? Well first of all, we've done this dance before: where the Democrats in Congress demand a deadline, Bush hems and haws, the Democrats get bolder, than Bush makes some claim that the Democrats don't care about the troops and the Democrats cave.
Also, there's the story I found yesterday about the surge reversal. It would be so easy for Bush to sign the "troop withdrawal" and use his surge reduction as proof that he's "withdrawing troops." And because your average American has a short political memory and the media doesn't care to remind people, the Democrats who are looking for brownie points will say, "See, we've scored a victory!"
Remember, according to that story the (currently unannounced) period for major reduction is between January and July of next year. The so-called "strongest Iraq bill to date?" AS described above it "requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008."
Again, unless there's something in this legislation that's not being reported, it would be too easy for Bush to kill two birds with one stone here.
If it passes, then great. Our troops need to get out of there as soon as possible. But to frame this event as a victory for the anti-war movement is premature.
WASHINGTON - Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for most troops to come home by December 2008. Their support paves the way for the bill's passage Wednesday.
The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too soft and did not demand an end to combat.
The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008.
You'd think the Bush Administration was going to have a heart attack when they heard the news:
The White House said Bush would veto the bill if it comes to him. Presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino called the legislation the "height of irresponsibility," charging Democrats with merely trying to "appease radical groups" such as MoveOn.org and Code Pink.
"Once again, the Democratic leadership is starting this debate with a flawed strategy, including a withdrawal date for Iraq, despite the gains our military has made over the past year, despite having dozens of similar votes in the past that have failed, and despite their pledge to support the troops," she said. "Democrats believe that these votes will somehow punish the president, but it actually punishes the troops."
But really, don't believe the hype on either side. Why? Well first of all, we've done this dance before: where the Democrats in Congress demand a deadline, Bush hems and haws, the Democrats get bolder, than Bush makes some claim that the Democrats don't care about the troops and the Democrats cave.
Also, there's the story I found yesterday about the surge reversal. It would be so easy for Bush to sign the "troop withdrawal" and use his surge reduction as proof that he's "withdrawing troops." And because your average American has a short political memory and the media doesn't care to remind people, the Democrats who are looking for brownie points will say, "See, we've scored a victory!"
Remember, according to that story the (currently unannounced) period for major reduction is between January and July of next year. The so-called "strongest Iraq bill to date?" AS described above it "requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008."
Again, unless there's something in this legislation that's not being reported, it would be too easy for Bush to kill two birds with one stone here.
If it passes, then great. Our troops need to get out of there as soon as possible. But to frame this event as a victory for the anti-war movement is premature.
Comments