« Did the judge ask him for his calculus homework too? | Main | The Daily Memo - 4/3/07 »
Legislating Iraq
Yes, I may generally have a bit of a liberal hard-on for Russ Feingold. But that doesn’t change the fact that his article from yesterday, published by Salon, is worth a read. In the short piece, Feingold explains the plan he and Senator Reid have crafted which would “effectively end our military mission in Iraq by March 31, 2008” without endangering the troops currently down range.
They plan to introduce the bill next week, when the Senate returns from spring break, and it would cut off most funding for the war after March 31, 2008, with a few narrowly carved exceptions. One reason I think this is an important read is because Feingold tries to go out of his way to explain that that “cutting off funds for the war” is not the same thing as “cutting off funds for the troops.”
And for the record, while I am generally on the liberal side of things, I will say that I’m not necessarily sure I even support the notion of quickly getting our troops out within the next year. While I am convinced that the Bush administration has botched this whole operation 10 ways from Sunday, I’m still not sure that things won’t get worse if we simply cut and run. More importantly to my own thought process though – last fall, I asked a friend who had just returned from a year in Iraq what he though the solution was. And while he hated his time there and hates everything about this war, he didn’t hesitate with his response: “more money and more troops.” That’s certainly not the popular opinion right now, but I think the underlying thought process is that we need to do this right, and that’s really the underlying problem. That the Bush Administration hasn’t done this right.
Of course, the Senate can fund the war; but it’s totally within Bush’s domain, as the Commander in Chief, to run the war. So nothing could really change until we get someone new in office, which is still a ways away. And the thought of losing so many more American lives in the intervening time period is scary. Which is why I say that I’m not sure I support a withdrawal, as opposed to saying I’m absolutely opposed to it.
It’s a complicated issue.
And that’s the other reason why I think Feingold’s article is an important read. Because it gets you thinking about this muck-a-muck, and helps steer us towards coming up with thoughts of our own, instead of just parroting the five-second blurbs the media stuffs down our throats.
