Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FUND THE TROOPS!
I'm glad to see the Democrats muddying up the latest Iraq funding supplemental with amendments and add-ons. Bush keeps swearing he'll veto anything but a clean bill, and if he'd like to veto a series of Iraq funding bills, I see no reason not to let him. But I wish the Democrats were being a bit more strategic as to what they were attaching to the legislation. As of now, the list appears to range from a second stimulus package to levee repair in the Gulf. The idea is that "by tying the war funding to a host of issues including unemployment, the housing crisis and trade with Colombia, Democrats hope to paint Bush and his allies as more concerned about Iraq’s problems than those at home." However, Bush's inevitable argument that these are unrelated issues will, in fact, hold water, as they are, in fact, unrelated issues.
Better would be tying the bill to a series of riders that actually relate. The new GI Bill legislation proposed by Sen. James Webb would be one option. So too would be Webb's legislation to guarantee soldiers rest time equal to their deployment time. Similarly, policy riders requiring the president to clearly articulate our goals and the conditions for success would be useful. Slap those on, and then let him veto. Let him veto again and again and again. If he doesn't want to fund the troops, it's true, no one can make him.
(Photo used under a Creative Commons license from Soldier's Media Center.)
COMMENTS (10)
Bushes comeback does 'hold water' as you say, but it would be politically suicidal.
I don't know if you know how bad the economy is for most people, but in this environment 'Those are unrelated issues' sounds a whole lot like 'Those are not about Iraq, and Iraq is the only thing I care about.'
Posted by: soullite | April 11, 2008 10:59 AM
Ezra is right on both the politics of non-military riders and the politics of military riders. The 12-month rest is fair, and so would be requiring that stop-loss provisions only be enacted by a Congressional resolution, not at executive whim.
Posted by: smaug | April 11, 2008 11:13 AM
Well, when the first round of riders is rejected on the grounds that they are non-military, then they can add the Webb bill and say "we toed your line, now what is your excuse?"
Posted by: Hardrada | April 11, 2008 12:01 PM
One of the interesting subthemes of the John McCain candidacy is that while he's very, very serious about foreign policy, he actually doesn't know very much about it.
Your premise is dubious. McCain was elected to the house in the early 80's and joined the Senate in 1987. He was on numerous committees.
Compared to the two candidates, McCain has a fucking Phd. in foreign policy! Let's recap the opposition's qualifications:
Clinton: New Senator. Most of experience was fucking the president.
Obama: New Senator. Gives good speech.
Posted by: El Viajero | April 11, 2008 12:20 PM
El Viajero:
And what exactly is McCain's foreign policy experience? Walking around a Baghdad market with his two favorite butt boys surrounded by Apache gunships and a bunch of Marines?
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | April 11, 2008 12:32 PM
Most Americans just aren't going to care if stop-loss orders are rescinded or not. No matter how much you want them to, they won't. Military families will, but they make up a fairly paltry percentage of the population.
To be politically effective, you need to make the point where it hits home with a large portion of the population. I know Ezra and his academic friends don't feel the pinch of this economy, but most people do. Thats why they don't think this line of reasoning will be effective. Thats mostly a failure on their part to understand that the composition of their social circle bears no real resemblance to the composition of America as a whole.
El Vaj, New Senators win the Presidency. Long standing Senators lose it.
Posted by: soullite | April 11, 2008 1:09 PM
El V...nobody is saying McCain wasn't on committees, hasn't travelled extensively, etc. That's a strawman argument, and nobody here is made of straw.
The point is that Sen. McCain doesn't *know* much about the world, and gets confused when talking about complex subjects. He also freely admits he knows very little about economics.
Posted by: JB | April 11, 2008 4:32 PM
Both Ezra and Soullite have asserted that McCain doesn't know much about foreign policy, even though he has more experience, years and years more, than his two rivals.
I would like to see something besides flapping gums as to why a reasonable person should believe them.
Posted by: El Viajero | April 11, 2008 5:03 PM
he has more experience
Experience doing what? And how does this relate to foreign policy?
That's like saying that McCain has a lot of experience with labor issues. Surely there are some committees, somewhere in the House and Senate that deal with labor policy, but no one would seriously claim that McCain has a "lot of experience when it comes to labor policy."
Not that I think McCain is a bad person-- I hope that Presidents Obama or Clinton appoints him to the blue ribbon commission to reform defense procurement procedures.
Posted by: Tyro | April 11, 2008 10:50 PM
I say put both domestic and specific military amendments. Then Bush will veto it for the 'non-related' stuff and get knocked for caring more about Iraq then America. Then we send it back with all the military stuff and if he vetoes that it would be the final slap in the face of our soldiers. At that point we should send back the original bill with all the domestic stuff added back in, rinse, and repeat. (Of course, make sure McCain tells us what he would do each time.)
El Via...'bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran' pretty much captures what McCain has learned in all his years in office. That dancing walrus has a broader ability to think.
Posted by: Ricky | April 12, 2008 12:42 PM