The House just passed a bill to give the President two months to present a plan for withdrawal from Iraq. It passed 377-46, so there was huge bipartisan support. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Dem, MD) said, "Our objective is to change direction in Iraq."
Funny, didn't Petraeus just silence many of the doubters about our progress there, and didn't September have the lowest casualty rate in over a year? Why are we changing direction, now that we've finally found the right direction?
This seems odd to me, especially with the huge Republican support. The bill would require the President to present a plan in 60 days, (though it doesn't have any inherent timeline for the withdrawal itself built in), and reports would be every 90 days after that. As such, I suppose it's one of those empty gestures that both sides can use to say they want to bring troops home (which is pretty popular right now), but without any real teeth (which still provides wiggle room). That impression is somewhat supported by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner's (Rep, OH) statement that "the bill would not require a withdrawal of forces and would merely require the Defense Department to do what it is already doing: draft contingency plans for a withdrawal. If anything, the bill is simply 'a slap in the face to the [anti-war] Left.'"
On a related note, the Democrats are now proposing a tax increase to pay for the ongoing war effort. What incredible gall! Is there anything they won't try to tax?
Obviously, the answer is no. These are the Democrats who want to run the country in 2008. Wanna' let 'em?
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment