The Iraq War .. Whose Legacy, Really?

H. CON. RES. 63

---

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Passed the House of Representatives February 16, 2007.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110ZLuX7a::

Today the Senate Republicans, in a rare Saturday session, exhibited cowardice as a Political Art by not allowing a vote on a resolution opposing President Bush's troop escalation in Iraq. The same resolution that on Friday, passed 246 -182 in the House with 17 Republicans defecting to the side of reason. Today's resolution was an opportunity to get on the record where the individual Senators stood on the very clear issue of escalation of American Military presence in the ongoing sectarian Iraq Civil War.

Numerous red herrings have been offered by the minority Republican members linking the resolution above with cutting funding to our troops in the field. I'm sorry, but reading and re-reading the resolution, I found, does not indicate anything about funding or not funding our troops. I hear remarks how this resolution is some insidious first step to abandoning US Military personal to starvation and murder at the hands of the Iraqi Insurgents . I'm afraid that just doesn't hold water.

The Republicans are the first to wield "Support of Our Troops" as a righteous light saber in the face of opponents to the war. Of course, with all of the injured coming back from the Middle East Campaign the Veterans Administration has reached a point where it has to ration medical care to them because of lack of funding. The Republicans could have passed legislation, while they were in the majority, to fully fund the VA and, thereby, tangibly demonstrate their support of our troops, they didn't. Maybe my problem is I don't understand the Republican definition of "support".

There is also much banter about how the Republicans are, at their heart, engaging in this obstructionism to support their "War Time President", George W. Bush. I sense there is something far more germane to the Republican position than protecting the historical legacy of one of the worst Presidents in Republican Party History ... hear me out.

In Vietnam, Truman sent the first advisers into the French debacle in 1950; in 1954, Eisenhower up the ante and the US was shouldering 80% of the cost; JFK inherited the policy and continued it; LBJ and Nixon escalated and mismanaged the effort, Ford oversaw the ultimate defeat and retreat of American forces. In Vietnam, there was enough political damage to be shared by both the Democrats and the Republicans. Iraq is different ... the Republicans own Iraq.

True there was a nearly bipartisan vote to grant President Bush the right to use force against Saddam, but when questions began to arise the control of Congress, the Constitutional Body of Oversight, by the Republicans came into play. Tom "The Hammer" Delay, flush with testosterone, kept the Republican flock in line. With smug assurance that the Democrats were politically irrelevant after the seemingly permanent shift to the Right the Nation displayed in elections since the birth of the Republican Congressional Majority, the Republican's sat on their hands and let the Dems twist in the wind. The election of 2006 took the wind out of their sails. and presented the Republicans with a HUGE problem. A failing war effort and no one but themselves to blame, or worse yet, take responsibility. The Republican's own the Iraq debacle, and it is the legacy of the Republican Party, not President Bush, they are concerned about.

The brutal sectarian violence unleashed by the invasion of Iraq is unlikely to end soon, in a land where seeking vengeance is the Muslim equivalent of Christianity's, "Turn the other Cheek". If the US troops are withdrawn from Iraq the implications for the Republican Party will be dire. In 100 years if a Republican President (probably a Yale Grad) decides to embark on some military adventure, the opposition Party leader, whether Democrat or what have you, can point an accusatory finger from the Well of the Senate and boldly state:

"Remember Iraq! The Republicans are at it again!"

For the war to collapse during the Bush presidency would cause an emasculation of the Republican Party that would endure. The Senate Republicans understand this, all too well. American's don't cater to losers, a retreat from Iraq is an undeniable Republican defeat.

The Republicans can't go on record in support of President Bush, whose poll ratings are in free fall, with an election coming in 08 that could really pull the rug out from under them, and they certainly can't align themselves with the Democrats, in many areas of the Country that would be political suicide. All that their cowardice allows them is hollow, non binding platitudes in support of American Military Personnel in the Iraq, and the kind of obstructionism the Senate Republicans displayed today. The only hope for the Republican Party is to stall America's imminent withdrawal from Iraq until they can either taint the Democrats, or can see a Democratic President in office they can blame for Iraq and save their skins.

The obstructionism and stalling, of course, is the Republican way of supporting our troops, by keeping them employed in Iraq, at least until the next National Election.

FogBelter out ....