Analysis: Congress Passes War Funding Bill

I agree with Mr. Wacker that the Democrats did not come out on top of the War funding bill, but they may not have expected to. I am a lifelong Republican and I have never seen such a poor Republican administration in my entire life.

There is not much the Democrats can do to override a veto if you simply do not have the numbers to do it, even if you did have all the Democratic votes plus some Republicans, but short of that you can force the President of the nation to have to use a veto which places the responsibility square on his shoulders if there was any question about it being there already. In the past Mr. Bush asked President Clinton for a timetable on our people in Bosnia. Apparently, and for the obvious reasons, his thoughts then would just as soon be lost and forgotten in relation to his stance now. While there always seems room for any situation to be worse, the question all Americans should ask is how much worse can it get? I believe history has shown that having a "better idea" is not a bad thing, it is the way you go about selling your "better idea" to the people of the world that can create some problems. People are simply going to dislike the idea of anyone deploying troops to their nation to bring the "a better idea” Eisenhower said it fairly clearly when he suggested that people would chose something that may or would be inherently bad for them over those using troops to "liberate" them from their own choice of destiny and bring them what was "good for them". In Iraq as with Vietnam we have decided what is best for others based in large part what we think is best for us and in our own interests. Many empires were built with the use of force and some lasted for quite a while, but where are they all now? It should not take a great deal of thought to know why any of us would resist another nation or group of people invading our nation with their military to bring us what worked for them or what they thought we needed and would work for us. The Iraqis may not have been united enough to toss off the Hussein regime on their own in a coordinated effort, but history shows that when there is a threat from the outside, factions that may not get along amongst themselves are often united against a common foreign enemy. No doubt we have the military might if we need to muster it, against campaign promises, to put down just about any nation that we would like to, but while might can appear to “make right” to many people, in the long term suppressing populations with force stretches any force thin and all it takes is the right moment of weakness and those waiting to exploit that moment will and they will do just as we did with King George III of England. In Iraq our role is the foreign force. That alone puts us at a disadvantage in many ways. In Vietnam it appeared we postponed and in some ways contributed to the inevitable loss of life by resisting what was the majority choice of Vietnamese even before we stepped in to try to block it. In Iraq the scenario and characters are slightly different, but we are there for mainly the same subjective reasons we were in Vietnam, not because we were so interested in the choice of destiny by the Vietnamese or Iraqis, but that their choices were/are in line with our own so that our interests might be protected above and beyond their own.

We the same applied to the people of the United States by a foreign entity, I feel assured Americans would respond with much of the same response we have seen in Vietnam and Iraq which is that of great resistance. Hitler and the Japanese set out in their own minds to make the world “a better place”. Their biggest mistake were their means and methods. Out of the Project for a New American Century we have a 21st century effort at new empire building, using nationalism, our own interests and threats from foreign sources as our excuses for taking advantage of a period where we face no single nation challengers to our military might.

Despite the warnings by many, including the current President’s own father about Iraq, we are seeing how capable such a leadership might be of carrying out a plan to use the American military or private mercenary contractors at multiples the cost, to assert our “interests” around the globe. If Iraq is any indication of how subsequent campaigns are to be executed, even if the majority of America was interested in pursuing such a course in earnest, I would say our chances of securing American interests around the globe are terrible from a diplomatic position and abysmal from a use of force standpoint. I believe Mr. Bush, his administration and my party (Republican) are going to be the biggest losers in the long term unless a lot more Republicans take notice of the rocks ahead on the course the captain of the ship is “staying” upon.

I agree with the basic facts, but I disagree that Bush won this battle. It is clear to me that the democrats won, and not only becuase they got one of their signature issues (increased minimum wage) passed as part of the compromise.

Bush has to defend the Iraq conflict again in September in order to get further funding. This will keep the arguments fresh, which is not good for Bush. In preparation for this argument, he has already contradicted the Pentagon about when to expect succeses (not this summer) in Iraq. He's had to do this in order to set up the "I told you not to expect anything..." argument he will be forced to use when requesting funds again. A big win for the democrats, I think...

My prediction is that the war will continue to be funded in short bursts, with the Bush administration taking a beating with every discussion. Eventually, adults will take over who will be more worried about peace than politics, and the war will end with a stable and peaceful Iraq. It is unlikely to happen on Bush's watch, however, so the next (democratic) president will get the credit for being a great statesman.

All in all, a big win for democrats, the United States, Iraq, and the world... eventually