Editorial

Bowing to the President:

How disheartening, to me, to learn that only fourteen Senators voted against the new Iraq Spending bill and none of the them were from Montana (boo, Baucus and Tester). During last November’s elections, many politicians voiced opposition to the war. They voted for the Iraq Spending bill earlier this May because it set strong and definite timetables for US troop withdrawal and benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. Bush threatened to veto it and he did.

This new bill provided most of the same spending, minus some of the extraneous funds for non-Iraq Occupation expenses, and includes $6 billion for Katrina reconstruction and a three-phase minimum wage hike to $7.25 an hour. It includes benchmarks for the Iraqi government that need to be met, with a neat little provision that states the President can waive them if he chooses - meaning he doesn’t have to enforce them and can ignore them if he likes.

Funding will go ‘til September, from which the Iraq situation will be re-analyzed and appropriate direction will go from there. However, upon reviewing the past actions of the Bush Administration, they seem awfully content to say everything is improving in Iraq while more soldiers, and even more Iraqis, die, and then ask America to continue to support the war and soldiers and ‘give the war strategy a chance.’

Thirty years ago, hippies and anti-Vietnam War protestors sang ‘Give Peace a Chance.’ How times have changed.

Even now, Bush has hinted a vision of Iraq that includes a pro-longed occupation force remaining for at least the next fifty years. Rumors in Washington political camps claim that Bush is also engineering the Iraq occupation so the next President will be unable to leave Iraq. Add to this a shocking moment when the maddened president pounded on his chest three times while yelling, “I’m the President!” in response to criticism about the war...by his own friends.

In 2004, Bush declared that the 1.2 percent win over John Kerry gave him the mandate to follow through on his policies, the war and so on. Yet, when it comes the sixty plus percent of Americans who want America out of Iraq and an end to the war, Bush defiantly claims he doesn’t follow polls and doesn’t make decisions based on them.

Seems like a majority of the Democrats have followed suit.

There were many reasons to vote for the supplemental bill as already mentioned, but the major reason for the nay vote was the laughably optional use of timetables. Bush claims that a spending bill with withdrawal dates is a schedule for failure and would embolden the enemy to wait out the war, rebuild their forces and follow us home. In my mind, the Democrats have emboldened the President to continue to pursue war spending based on his terms; a few bones were thrown in for the Democrats, but when it comes down to it, at what cost? A higher minimum wage, which will lead to more tax revenue for more war spending?

While we're down here, Mr. President, we’ll shine your shoes.

As it stands, $420 billion dollars has been spent on Iraq and it’s outlying war. 3500 soldiers and 65,000 Iraqis have died and tens of thousands of American and Iraqis have suffered devastating injuries in body, mind and soul. The national debt is nearing nine trillion dollars and with Bush’s tax cuts during wartime (the only president to do so), it will continue to deepen.

What gets me, finally, his how President Bush asked reporters if they wanted their children to be safe from terrorist who would follow us home if America withdraws from Iraq. Cattle farms aren’t that full of bull. Imagine: America pulls out of Iraq. With spending going elsewhere other than Iraq, money can be then go to our regional intelligence agencies to follow up on tips, leads and information. The National Guard can train for various types of terrorist attacks on the home front and be prepared. Our hospitals can use funding to take care of our veterans and develop processes and procedures for dealing with terrorist attacks. Cities can develop emergency plans, stockpile vaccines and antidotes and adequately train police forces. Legal surveillance programs can also be used to find and draw out the sleeper cells in the US. Full-on diplomatic talks with countries around the world will yield cooperation in intelligence sharing and joint anti-terror ventures. Finally, appropriate funding will be used to track down Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida cells, groups and leaders throughout the world and won’t be used to police a civil war in a country that posed no threat the US.

Let’s not forget all the money that will be returned to education, healthcare, environmental protection, alternate fuel research and so on.

Iraq will not fall to the terrorists. Sure, Sunni and Shi’a are intent on killing each other, but both don’t want to be ruled by al-Qaida’s narrow-minded view of Islam and both view al-Qaida as a nuisance. Sunni and Shi’a are sick of the occupation and because of that, America has lost allies against al-Qaida.

The war-spending supplement will last until September. By September, the cost of the Iraq Occupation will reach $500 billion dollars and President Bush has said that August may be the bloodiest time of the year.

Yay. Money well spent.