You can't hurt a troop by defunding a war

In this essay, David Swanson examines the meaning of "support our troops" and the inconsistency in such a phrase when escalating a war or letting it rage on interminably. His conclusion?

If Bush vetoes a war funding bill, he will be doing so because it asks him to end the war someday and he never wants to end the war. He will NOT be cutting off money for troops. And neither will Congress if it does its Constitutional duty and slams the vault shut and ends the occupation of Iraq.

A commander who supports his troops?

There are many things that could be said about the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed army hospital and the subsequent sacking of the hospital head. In this case the Onion's three talking heads say it best.

It's disgusting to realize that our Commander in Chief's commitment to "supporting our troops" really was just a political slogan. He should take heed to Amy Lemeiux of Eagan, MN, whose letter to the editor earlier this week nailed the issue on the nose.

Donning a magnetic yellow ribbon or wearing red on Fridays to "show support for our troops" is as about as effective and supportive as spitting in the direction of a forest fire, pointing to the saliva as evidence of your support and condemning everyone who didn't spit.

Let's try supporting our troops in ways that are meaningful -- like trying diplomacy before resorting to more violence and providing medical care for them when they return.

Amen.

Congress: The Suggesting Branch of Government

President Bush recently submitted his fiscal request for Iraq - all emergency spending of course - for nearly $100 billion. Democrats were initially planning to set conditions on the war policy before giving the President his fat check, but have apparently been shamed into de-linking war funding from policy by Republicans, who are waving the bloody shirt again and accusing Democrats of trying to harm the troops in the field.

Aside: for the love of Pete, get a backbone! Is it worse for the troops to limit funds that will require them to be sent home or to keep funding this failed war?

So what's the bold move? The Democrats are going to require that troops are equipped and rested before Bush sends them off to Iran Iraq. Of course, this is already the policy, but it can be waived by the Defense Department. The new policy - the sum total of Democratic war-ending efforts - is that the new policy requires the President to waive the readiness requirement.

Newsflash 1: The Defense Department works for Bush. When they waive the requirement, they do so at his bidding. He is the Commander in Chief.

Newsflash 2: Bush has already taken the blame for Iraq (see Approval Rating and 2006 Elections).

In other words, this is posturing on the level of "you don't support the troops because you want to end a war!" (see Republican Party)

The Democrats need to do two things:
1) Exert Congress' muscles in wartime and tell the President that he can plan a war, but he can't pay for one without approval.
2) Do what they were elected to do - end the war - by putting heavy restrictions on the fiscal authorization such as:
a) no troop readiness certification can be waived, period.
b) no troop surge can be sent without Congressional approval.
c) no war in Iran without Congressional approval (and no money for it, period).
d) no more war funding without some way to pay for it - i.e. taxes
e) no more war funding without a comprehensive plan for caring for injured vets (and paying for such care).