Go to the Troops
Make the Veto More than Just the Stroke of a Pen
By Mark I Posted in Spotlight Blogs | War — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This week, nine brave US soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division were killed in a bombing at their forward base in Baquba, Iraq. Today, Congress will vote on an Iraq War Supplemental that, if enacted, would guarantee that those nine troops, and the roughly 3,200 others who have given the full measure of devotion in Iraq, have died in vain. Congress will vote to begin the slow march towards defeat in Iraq today when it votes to begin troop withdrawals by October first of this year with the goal of completing them by April first of next year.
Thankfully, the bill will never become law. President Bush has promised a veto and he has the votes in both chambers of Congress to sustain it. But fighting off this attempt to Congressionally envelop the troops is not enough. The president must make a dramatic statement in doing so. I can think of no greater way for him to show his support for the men and women bravely serving in Iraq than to veto this bill in their presence, say at Fort Bragg, NC, home to the 82nd Airborne and to all nine troops killed on Monday.
Read on...
In setting their timelines, Democrats in Congress claim that they are protecting the troops from abusive use by an out of touch Administration pursuing a failed policy. They are doing no such thing. Democrats are cynically trying to secure political advantage for themselves under the guise of resucing the troops from their mission. Instead they will only secure defeat for America in Iraq and a victory for the enemies of freedom everywhere in the world.
The president needs to make it clear to the American people that this act by Congress would be harmful to the troops serving in Iraq and devestating to the morale of those here at home. Some of those stationed in places like Fort Bragg may be asked to go to Iraq in the time before the mandated withdrawal dates in a kind of macabre competetion not to be, "the last man to die for a mistake." If Congress truly wanted to protect the troops, it would restrain its own impulse to resuce them and let them complete their mission.
President Bush has been given a golden opportunity to show the American people just what the troops themselves think of such meddling in their mission by Congress. The president should take that opportunity and go to the troops. This is not the time for a South Lawn, Roosevelt Room, or even an Oval Office ceremony. The president needs to take this bill where it belongs, to the troops it is going to harm, and let them have their way with it.
« Sen. Obama Getting Heat for Comparing Sen. Coburn to a Terrorist — Comments (20) | Pelosi Plays to America’s Enemies — Comments (21) »
Go to the Troops 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
it has been suggested to me that this would appear (and may actually BE) too exploitative...and that was not my intent with the idea-can't take it back, but I now think it a bad idea.
I'm with you...MAKE it happen
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Mark's original suggestion is basically the same thing.
Unfortunately, Walter Reed is practically a bad word at this point with all the negative press, and it'd be best to not bring it back up again. And it would muddy the waters--is this a Walter Reed thing or a Troops thing?
And vetoing the bill in front of the troops, while definitely a statement, opens up the possibility of "President Bush Vetoes Funds Right In Front of Troops". Payoff could be worth the risk, I don't know.
The safe thing to do is just veto the thing with a statement to the Press Corps. It only takes a second to do, and then all the pressure and eyes are back on the Dem Congress again. Safe and effective.
I'm not sure using the military to make a statement is such a good idea. I like the thought that our military remains neutral between the political parties.
It would be better if both sides would just stay out of the way and allow the military to do their job. If fully funded and allowed to make their own ROE this war would be over so much quicker.
This bill directly affects their future. How can they be neutral? This would be no different than the president going to deliver a speech on the war in front of them, which he has done several times. Should troops not be allowed to express their opinion on the war then? Wouldn't that be seen as taking sides politically? Nonsense.
President Bush should say something along the lines of this, "Here's what I think of Congress's attempt to handcuff your commanders and generals. Here's what I think of their efforts to undermine all of the good works you have fought and died for in Iraq. I will not allow Congress to consign your buddies' sacrifice to a mistake." Then sign the veto and let the crowd go wild.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Essentially what you are asking here is that the troops be used as cheerleaders for the President's veto. I don't have a problem with that. Background settings are very important. Also, I believe the troops will enjoy a visit from their CIC.
Besides, about the only time I really enjoyed being in formation was when President Regan or Bush came to speak. Luckily, I didn't have to when Carter was president and I always managed to find an excuse when Clinton was around. Never drew the short straw.
Is that the Democrats could easily use them as a back drop as well.
They could say something along the lines of this, "Here's what we think of the President's stubbornness. He wants you to stay in Iraq without goals - without milestones. He wants to extend your tours. He is not satisfied with your brothers in arms deaths - he wants more. Why?"
Be those points right or be them wrong - using the military as a back drop is ALWAYS wrong. They are not pawns. You don't use them for political gain. What Waxman did yesterday was disgusting. Just as it is disguisting when the President does the same.
The troops are soldiers. They are given a task. They perform that task. They are NOT political play things. They are not a prop that a politician can pull out of his bag whenever he needs a convenient straw man. Our military is more than stump speeches and yellow ribbons. Lets try and treat them that way.
I think he's already been criticized for using the troops as props for political gain, this would doubtless result in more of the same.
...from their parade of "book deal" generals to cherry-picked "Move On" warriors to their last presidential candidate.
GWB gets plenty of criticism for things he never said or did. The purpose of the constant criticism from the Left and their MSM lackeys is to cower GWB from fighting back. It's worked spectacularly well . . . up until now. This is the time to aggressively fight back even if it might hurt a few fragile feelings on the other side. Ignore the whiners and do what's right, GWB!
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
A prop is an inanimate object used for dressing. Agree or disagree with the retired generals' own words, they were speaking their own minds. Simply signing a bill in the presence of uniformed troops, on the other hand, is clearly using them as props.
...animate or inanimate?
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
he could reprise the #1 GWB moment over the document.
soli Deo gloria
go cross town and do it at Walter Reed.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).