Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
I have to say, as disappointed as I might be with how much more this appropriations bill could have accomplished with stronger language or even cutting off funding for the Iraq debacle, that this is a good first step. This bill puts on a binding timeline for getting out (Aug 31, 2008), and mandates that our troops be adequately equipped and trained before shipped off to the combat zone (something we haven’t been doing, which is dangerous for them, and something which will further restrict the “surge” because we don’t have enough soldiers at readiness capacity). How anyone could possibly vote against the latter motion and still consider themselves “for the troops” is beyond me.
Of course, the Decider-in-Chief will probably veto, or at best, sign-statement this away, ignore the law, and cause a constitutional crisis (I’ve always said it will come to that), but the fact is, Mr. Bush, elections matter. The people spoke in November. Now, I don’t know if you care about your party or your legacy, but keep up this course, and both are in serious jeopardy. Your party will be lucky to gain a majority nationally in 20 years, at the rate they are going.
Given this Iraq bill, vetoed or not, and all the myriad scandals surrounding the White House right now (too many to count!), consider this duck totally lame.
Too bad it didn’t come sooner, before so many people died or so many lives were destroyed.
[powered by WordPress.]
|« Feb||Apr »|
44 queries. 1.430 seconds