Progressive Democrat Issue 119: CONGRESS, BUSH AND THE TROOPS

Congress and Bush are having a little disagreement over funding for our troops: the Democrats want some accountability and a hint of an exit strategy while Bush wants to be Tsar. John McCain, once something of a maverick among Republicans, has become Bush's faithful lap dog, yapping his agreement with everything Bush says and does.

Here is John Edwards' statement on all of this:

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement regarding Senator John McCain's speech today on the war in Iraq.

"John McCain said today that we should seek the "judgment of history" rather than the "small politics of the day." But the people playing politics with Iraq are Senator McCain and President Bush, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

"McCain and Bush are brazenly trying to claim that Congress is failing to provide our soldiers the resources they need. Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress funded the troops. If the President vetoes that funding, he's the only one responsible for blocking funding for the troops. And John McCain knows that.

"I have urged Congress to stand up to the President's veto threat, rather than back down in a false game of chicken. If he does veto funding for our troops, Congress should send the same bill right back to him. And they should do this again and again, until the President finally understands that he cannot reject the will of the overwhelming majority American people.

"We must end the conflict in Iraq, and force the Iraqis and their neighbors to find a political solution to the conflict. The plan I announced months ago would cap funding at 100,000 troops to stop the McCain Doctrine of escalation and force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops followed by a complete withdrawal in 12-18 months. Under my plan, complete withdrawal is not just a goal" it is a requirement backed by Congress' funding power."

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has a broader statement condemning the Republican flip-flopping on troop funding:

Contradicting Years of Statements, GOP Senators Vote Against Funding Troops in the Field

For the second time in three days, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell today led his Senate colleagues to vote against a change of course in Iraq – opting to leave U.S. troops in the country indefinitely, even as a civil war grows. Not only did Republican Senators vote to unconditionally support George Bush’s Iraq policy, they also contradicted their own longtime statements by voting against funding for U.S. troops in the field and needed resources for veterans.

“With one vote, Republican Senators showed they are as consistent in their support for Bush’s Iraq policy as they are inconsistent in their support for troops in harm’s way,” DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. “Mitch McConnell and his loyal flock should be ashamed of themselves for putting their blind allegiance to the president ahead of support for our troops.”

Senate Bill Includes $96 Billion for U.S. Military Operations. The Senate-passed $122 billion war spending bill included $96 billion to the Defense Department, mostly for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The essential war funding will be used to procure equipment, support U.S. military personnel and provide health care among other things. The bill also includes $1.8 billion for veterans care. [AP, 3/28/07; Democratic Policy Committee, 3/26/07; MSNBC, 3/29/07]

Senate Bill Would Redeploy Most U.S. Troops By March 2008. The Senate proposal passed Thursday set a goal of withdrawing most American troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008, with the redeployment beginning within months of passage. The plan mirrors the withdrawal resolution that Senate Republicans blocked earlier this month. [New York Times, 3/27/07; CQ Today, 3/23/07]
Republican Senators Previously Pledged Support for Funding Troops.

Sununu Promised He Would Not Support Cutting off Funds for Troops in Harm’s Way. During an interview in January 2007, New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu said that no matter the outcome of the Bush’s escalation, he promised to not vote to cut off funding for troops in harms way. [Union Leader, 1/16/07]

Earlier This Year, Collins Highlighted Need to Provide Resources to U.S. Troops. Discussing Bush’s escalation plan and funding for the troops just last month, Maine Sen. Susan Collins said, “I want to make sure that our troops, whether it's those that are there now or those that may be sent, despite my views, have all the equipment and support that they need.” [NPR, “Talk of the Nation,” 2/7/07]

Coleman Said Fully Funding Troops Was A Priority. In May 2005, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman said, “It remains our priority to fully fund our men and women in the armed forces as they work to protect the U.S. in the War on Terror. Our goal is to make sure that our soldiers can successfully carry out their mission and return home safely.” A year later, during debate on another emergency war funding bill, Coleman said, “I will vote in favor of this emergency supplemental bill because it provides critical funding for our troops. That is what it is about.” [Coleman Press Release, 5/5/05; Congressional Record, 6/13/06]

Keep watching. This is all unfolding. The Democrats are slowly manouvring the debate back to where it should be, focused on the troops, withdrawal and a return to a sane foreign policy. Without the ability to stop filibusters and override a veto, this is how Democrats have to do it: by slowly turning the debate against Bush until more and more Republicans jump ship. So far NONE of the Republican frontrunners for President have recognized that Americans are tired of this war with no purpose and no exit strategy. The Democrats seem to realize it.

Click here to go back to THOUGHTS section and Table of Contents for this issue.