1115.org

(1)
Let’s start with two quotes, steaming fresh, straight from the horse’s mouth (that would be President Bush):
AP:

“They have every right to express their opinion, and it is a nonbinding resolution,” he said of the measure before the House. But looking ahead, he added that Congress soon “is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops. … We have a responsibility, all of us here in Washington, to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the resources and flexibility they need to prevail.”

From last week’s press conference:

I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.

I said early in my comment — my answer to Sheryl was, somebody who doesn’t agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am.

It’s futile, of course, to ask Bush: “proof” of what? He doesn’t answer questions, period.

So you may as well ask me. From where I sit, it’s obvious he means proof of whether you are just as patriotic a person as he is.

You have the absolute, unqualified, unmitigated right to disagree with his plan, and he respects that. No sir, he salutes that. But you have to support the troops. Which means you have to support their mission. Which means you have to fund their mission. Which means: you have to vote the funds to support his plan, although you have an absolute right to go on disagreeing with it. Just keep putting the money where his mouth is, and you can put your words wherever you want.

He’s smart enough to spin that ox-crap? But somehow, if you try to ask him why you can’t support the troops (and their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) without supporting Bush’s misguided escalation “plan” (which threatens all three of the above), or his whole alleged Iraq “policy” for that matter, he suddenly turns dumber than a doorbell.

(2)
With Bush, at least I understand why he’s spinning this ox-crap. And I can’t say it lowers my opinion of him, either. Because it can’t go any lower than it already is.

But what I don’t understand is why Democrats are lining up to kiss his nether aperture over this argument. Carl Levin, for example:

With the safety of U.S. troops already in Iraq at stake, Levin said there was little appetite in Congress to end funding for the unpopular war.

If the Democrats vote to cut off funding for the so-called surge, or even the whole damn Iraq war, how does that jeopardize the safety of any American troops? Bush will have to bring them home. Or that’s what he should do, what he’s morally obliged to do. If he chooses to leave them out there, with duct tape and string instead of equipment, then that’s on him.

What exactly are the Democrats afraid of? A majority of Americans (54%) believe that Congress should cut off funding for the escalation. And even that’s not enough to embolden the Democrats?