The Senate debate on the war, casualties and funding

With another 2 weeks remaining in July, we have reached just one short of the 43 total U.S. Fatalities for July 2006. Sad days indeed.

With the Senate falling short of the needed 60 votes, the vote was 52-46 for bringing home the troops within 120 days of the Bill's enactment. The Democrats continually ask fellow Republicans to vote with them, to have the courage to go against the president and his failed policy. But if Democrats had the same courage they would vote to cut off the funds as Rep. John Murtha suggested almost a year ago. I just heard Sen. Biden on the Senate floor saying "as long as there was even just 1 troop in Iraq" that he was in favor of funding them. Senator Biden, that is why you haven't broken into the top tier for President. Your Iraq ideas are sound regarding the only realistic solutions in Iraq and what policy we should be supporting with the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, you ideas here at home regarding funding the troops, sounds more like a Republican or that new Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Joe, change course on this if you truly believe we can't get this President to voluntarily change course in Iraq. Every day that the funding continues from today the Democrats own this war, because they had the tools and the power to stop it and won't. And this, Senator Biden, comes from a supporter and contributor to your Presidential campaign.

How Democrats and Republicans can win the Iraq war funding battle

It doesn't take a genius to figure out how the Democrats and Republicans can actually win this battle with President Bush's veto threat all the time. The problem is they don't think like Karl Rove. But if they did here's how they would make it a "slam dunk".

They stand accused by the President of not supporting the troops. Their claims, that they are supporting the troops, seems not to be getting the necessary traction. Many Republicans are worried still supporting the President and so they side with the President and ensure a veto will be sustained. However here's a strategy that is a guaranteed success. First, the Democrats need to craft a Bill, which includes the following:

1) Funding of the troops with a timetable for withdrawal and
2) Includes the language and money necessary to reinstitute the DRAFT.

One could make a very good argument that what the troops need now are
re-enforcements and use the President’s own “surge” strategy as proof. They could use the General’s own comments in support of the need for more troops and the fact that the military is either broken or close to it.

If the President vetoes the Bill, he is denying needed re-enforcements AND the money to support the troops. If he signs it, he and the Republicans will get some heat from their constituents, but by signing the Bill, he has also agreed to a timetabe for withdrawal. He can blame the Democrats for instituting a Draft but he can no longer say they aren’t supporting the troops. Republicans win because they too want to increase the size of the military and that supports the troops. Besides we need to consider the fact that Congress has already approved increases in the Army and Marines but they are not finding volunteers to fill the ranks. If we have a Draft with a lottery system, many will vote to end the war and not be so quick to go to war again.

This strategic choice would quiet all voices that the Democrats are wimps and won’t protect the nation. There is no downside here.

Iraq funding needs to be tied to benchmarks- For the Administration and the Iraqi's

Democrats have made their point about funding the war and tying it to a date for withdrawal of U.S. troops. The President is expected to veto this Bill next week, possibly on Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's Mission Accomplished moment in flight gear. But after the President vetoes the Bill, Democrats and the President are back to square one. Many have called for this next round of confrontation to be linked to successes and benchmarks for the Iraqi's. I suggest also that they be tied to President Bush and the effort for a diplomatic solution. There needs to be measured progress in meeting with the parties in the region such as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, as well as efforts to resolve, once and for all, the Israeli/Palestinian issue and push for a 2 State solution. This is something worth pursuing even while benchmarks are difficult to establish. At least there should be a prerequisite that minimally there be monthly meetings with the regional parties with the Goal of a framework for peace in the region. Jim Baker could be appointed as Middle East Special Diplomat in charge of negotiations, as he knows many of the players, is a Republican and has the necessary skills to pull this off.

End game for the Democrats in defeating Bush on the Iraq war.

Every news media anchor person is saying that no one knows where this latest confrontation is headed with the President over funding of the war in Iraq, because the Democrats don't have the votes to stop Bush. This is absolutely a false statement. The Democrats don't need 60 votes to override the veto of the president. It is the President that needs the Democrats to approve spending. If the Senate stays in gridlock, the funding will not be approved and the troops will have to come home. Ultimately the President knows this and will either come with hat in hand, looking for some compromise, or will try to blame the Iraq war aftermath on the Democrats. None will believe the Democrats created this mess no matter how Karl Rove tries his best. This was, is and will be Bush's war and his legacy, period! Democrats and courageous Republicans like Hagel need to hang tough. You are doing your best service to your country by bringing the troops home sooner rather than later. You will be saving our soldier's lives.