The Happy Arab News Service




Sunday, March 25, 2007




Retreat and Butter

Astonishingly powerful editorial in today's Post.

Are Democrats in the House voting for farm subsidies or withdrawal from Iraq?

Friday, March 23, 2007; Page A16

TODAY THE House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual members of Congress. At the tail of all of this logrolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill -- for whatever reason -- will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

Congress can and should play a major role in determining how and when the war ends. Political benchmarks for the Iraqi government are important, provided they are not unrealistic or inflexible. Even dates for troop withdrawals might be helpful, if they are cast as goals rather than requirements -- and if the timing derives from the needs of Iraq, not the U.S. election cycle. The Senate's version of the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan contains nonbinding benchmarks and a withdrawal date that is a goal; that approach is more likely to win broad support and avoid a White House veto.

As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.

Source

This editorial brilliantly exposes the rotten mindset behind the latest drive to leave Iraq. It's also true about the whole anti war camp, but in particular of that part of it that uses a twisted hippy peace logic to justify leaving Iraq to slaughter. It's not that the idea to leave is necessarily wrong. I actually think it's right. It's ok, as fas as I am concerned, to leave it to the Sunnis and the Shia to restablish the natural power balance in Iraq by means of chlorine bombs and ethnic cleansing . And the West has nothing to lose by letting the Sunni Shia sectarian wars split the Middle East and the Muslim world by allowing them to reach their maximum in Iraq. But why to lie and pretend that the idea of withdrawal comes out of genuine care for the people of Iraq?

Back to HappyArabNews

Proclaimed un monstruooo muy monstruoso at 11:04 AM

0 Comments