There's a troubling new AP story out about the Iraq supplemental. It suggests that the Democrats are considering sending Bush a bill with no timelines, though the bill may include provisions that threaten Iraq reconstruction money if the Iraqis don't meet certain benchmarks for success.
I just talked to Joe about this. He thinks this may be a Democratic trial balloon in order to see how we're all going to react. Well, then let this be our reaction: No.
I understand that we may not be able to get a bill passed that requires our withdrawal from Iraq now or even next year. And I understand that Bush is freaking out about any kind of timeline at all, and we are walking a fine line here in which no one wants to be to blame for not funding the troops. Fine, I get all of that and accept it as a given. But, first, I have a problem with threatening Iraq's reconstruction money. Cutting that money will only worsen the situation in Iraq. That hardly helps our troops on the ground, or the Iraq government to solidify its power or democracy. Cutting our money and pulling out, maybe. But cutting our money and staying in, that sounds awfully counterproductive - it will only make matters worse while our guys are still there. (And as an aside, pulling aid under any scenario does seem a bit calloused as we are to blame for screwing up their entire country.)
What should the Dems do? Murtha's proposal. Give Bush half the money now, and half the money in July (or whenever) after he briefs the nation on his progress. It's what any good corporate CEO would do, and after all, isn't Bush the MBA President? Not to mention, you've been saying for weeks that there would be no blank checks. It's important that your word mean something, and be seen to mean something.
And when Bush starts whining about how only getting half the money will hurt the troops, it's time for the Democrats to respond with the following:
"He's lying. Everybody knows it. He just makes stuff up and says it, knowing the media will never question him on it. Well, we are questioning him on it: He's lying."It's one thing for him not to want benchmarks or not to want us to pull out, but he won't be able to justify to the American people why he shouldn't show us some progress before he gets the entire enchilada.
And another thing. If Bush thinks only getting half the money puts our troops at risk, then he should have thought about that the previous six years that he's been running all of his little wars off budget, requesting money here and there every few months because he didn't want the American people to know how truly costly his folly has become. He has the gall to come to us with another of his piecemeal funding bills and then complain that if he gets a piecemeal funding bill in return it will hurt the troops.
He's lying.
PS The man is at 28%, after all. Stop treating him otherwise.
