Game of Chicken Begins Over Iraq Funding

by Sean Hackbarth

With the Senate keeping a retreat (not withdrawal) date in their Iraq emergency funding bill we’re on our way to a game of chicken. Sen. Chuck Schumer dug in saying, “This is not one battle. It’s a long-term campaign. Every time we have a vote like this, it ratchets up the pressure on the president and on many of those of his party.” President Bush correctly threatens to veto any bill that has a retreat date.

Thanks to another Senator Chuck, Hagel this time, the Republicans failed to take out language on U.S. troop retreat. He told the Senate, “It’s now time for the Congress to step forward and establish responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military involvement in Iraq.” In Hagel’s odd way he made his statement of “continued military involvement” by keeping the Democrats’ withdrawal date of 03.31.2008 in the bill.

Like the House Democrats Senate Democrats refuse to use their constitutional power at hand. Instead of playing general with a date to leave Iraq they could vote to end funding of the war. But that would mean Democrats (and Hagel) would have to take some responsibility for Iraq’s collapse and emboldening our Islamist enemy.

The deadline looms. An emergency bill has to be passed to keep U.S. forces funded. Someone will have to give. I’m afraid to say the President will probably accept some kind of watered down retreat date that he’ll ignore with a signing statement. If he does that MoveOn.org and a few radicals in Congress–maybe even Hagel–will start shouting, “Impeachment!”

“Senate Backs Pullout Proposal” [via memeorandum]

UPDATE: Sen. John McCain on the Today show:

I think 50 of my colleagues made a very bad decision yesterday. And I believe that there’s no doubt that the president, who is the commander in chief — we will prevail. We will fund whatever is necessary for these grave — brave Americans who are fighting in Iraq to succeed.

By the way, you had a clip that — Senator Reid said it’s not worth one more drop of American blood. If that’s true, then why doesn’t Senator Reid and the Democrats propose cutting off funding and bring them home tomorrow? Why wait 18 months?

They don’t want to do that. Then they would have the responsibility for what happens afterward.

McCain’s dead right.

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

6 Responses to “Game of Chicken Begins Over Iraq Funding”

1

The “I” word is the plan, and if that vote is any indication, the Dems+Hagel are only 16 (perhaps 15 depending on Mr. “Double-Secret-Retreat” Pryor) “Pubbies” away from that point

2

retreat (not withdrawal)

Nice. The war of semantics rages on. You say to-MAY-to…

If i were in Congress, my response to a veto would be, “ok, fine, we tried to fund the troops and mandate that they have, ya know, adequate armor and such things that they’ve been denied, but you vetoed it. Now we’re just gonna cut off funding.” But i’m not a politician, thank god for me (and for you, too–that’s ok, i’ll make your joke for you; you don’t have to).

3

They aren’t going to vote to cut off funding, because they want to lose the war on behalf of the rest of the country WITHOUT HAVING THEIR FINGERPRINTS ON THE DEFEAT.

An exit date/timetable merely tells the terrorists to stock up ammunition and start the Civil War once we’re gone. It’s not just a terrible idea; it’s unacceptably terrible.

4

An exit date/timetable merely tells the terrorists to stock up ammunition and start the Civil War once we’re gone.

And in the meantime, while they were laying low, we had enough of an interruption in the violence to actually train an effective Iraqi security force, and as a result, your putative civil war is ended before it even began (that is, accepting the conservative talking point that it hasn’t begun, yet.)

5

Well, #1, i said if i were in Congress. That’s not likely to happen anytime soon, because i wouldn’t have time for my band then.

#2,

An exit date/timetable merely tells the terrorists to stock up ammunition and start the Civil War once we’re gone. It’s not just a terrible idea; it’s unacceptably terrible.

Wait, start the civil war once we’re gone? In what parallel dimension has it not started?

6

DJ,
US Grant and Abe Lincoln saw a civil war here over 100 years ago. They would not recognize this as one. Later Presidents would recognize this however as an insurgency, kinda like the Philipines after the Spanish-American War or Germany after WW2. By the way, we won both of those.

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>