Common Sense

Today the Senate approved language in the emergency spending bill for Iraq that would set a nonbinding date for troop withdrawal.

This should be a happy day for the American people. There is almost certainly going to be a withdrawal timetable in the final bill and President Bush will have to explain why he wasn’t willing to sign the bill and give the troops the money they need right now. If it is such an emergency that they get it, then whatever else is attached to the bill does not matter. They can’t wait for political posturing by the president.

The fact that the measure passed in the Senate is something of a miracle. Sen. Chuck Hagel switched sides to vote with the Democrats, as did Sen. Ben Nelson who just two weeks ago voted down a timetable. “People want our troops home,” Mr. Nelson said.

Not surprisingly…

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, voted with the Republicans.

What a total douchebag.

John McCain, presidential hopeful and duplicitous sack of shit, also opposed the language.

“This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act,” said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it’s a recipe for defeat.”

Mr. McCain, who had planned to be away from the Capitol on Tuesday campaigning for his presidential bid, turned to a large map of Iraq positioned next to him on an easel as he made his argument. He pointed to areas around the country where Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander, has reported some success in his new military plan.

“We cannot give up,” Mr. McCain said, “just as we are starting to turn things around in Iraq.”

I’ll admit, McCain has much more military experience than me and may understand these things much better, but I thought the whole idea was supposed to be that we would withdraw after we’ve succeeded. Wouldn’t turning things around be a reason to  leave?

I don’t know, I might be getting that confused.

I do want to talk about something else, though. I watched Richard Engel’s War Diary last week on MSNBC and part of it struck me really hard.

He was interviewing some soldiers in Iraq and they were talking about people supporting the troops.

Soldier: No, if you’re going to support us, support us all the way, support the war. If not, go along with your lives and we’ll take care of it here. You can’t support the troops and not what we are doing over here. Because people are dying. You know what I’m saying? You may say, “Oh, we support the troops,” but you’re not supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what they believe for, what we die for. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

I understand that over there, with people you know dying everyday and the specter of your own death constantly haunting you, you’re going to feel that way. ‘How can they not support what we’re doing when my friend just gave his life for it?’

But that’s the same kind of thinking that got us into a deeper mess in Vietnam.

Soldiers died by the truckloads and the impetus became Let not these soldiers die in vain. If we just gave up right now and pulled out all of our troops, then all of these soldiers died for nothing.

But that’s not the way to see this. If anything, those soldiers sacrificed themselves so we could see how big a mistake this has been. Their deaths have meaning to me, even if their own commander-in-chief is oblivious to their sacrifice.

The longer the war goes on, the greater to the sacrifice required before he opens his eyes to reality. That is a sad thought. Hopefully, because he is such a coward in real life, maybe he’ll back down and the Congress will prevale.

Today the Senate approved language in the emergency spending bill for Iraq that would set a nonbinding date for troop withdrawal.

This should be a happy day for the American people. There is almost certainly going to be a withdrawal timetable in the final bill and President Bush will have to explain why he wasn’t willing to sign the bill and give the troops the money they need right now. If it is such an emergency that they get it, then whatever else is attached to the bill does not matter. They can’t wait for political posturing by the president.

The fact that the measure passed in the Senate is something of a miracle. Sen. Chuck Hagel switched sides to vote with the Democrats, as did Sen. Ben Nelson who just two weeks ago voted down a timetable. “People want our troops home,” Mr. Nelson said.

Not surprisingly…

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, voted with the Republicans.

What a total douchebag.

John McCain, presidential hopeful and duplicitous sack of shit, also opposed the language.

“This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act,” said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it’s a recipe for defeat.”

Mr. McCain, who had planned to be away from the Capitol on Tuesday campaigning for his presidential bid, turned to a large map of Iraq positioned next to him on an easel as he made his argument. He pointed to areas around the country where Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander, has reported some success in his new military plan.

“We cannot give up,” Mr. McCain said, “just as we are starting to turn things around in Iraq.”

I’ll admit, McCain has much more military experience than me and may understand these things much better, but I thought the whole idea was supposed to be that we would withdraw after we’ve succeeded. Wouldn’t turning things around be a reason to  leave?

I don’t know, I might be getting that confused.

I do want to talk about something else, though. I watched Richard Engel’s War Diary last week on MSNBC and part of it struck me really hard.

He was interviewing some soldiers in Iraq and they were talking about people supporting the troops.

Soldier: No, if you’re going to support us, support us all the way, support the war. If not, go along with your lives and we’ll take care of it here. You can’t support the troops and not what we are doing over here. Because people are dying. You know what I’m saying? You may say, “Oh, we support the troops,” but you’re not supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what they believe for, what we die for. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

I understand that over there, with people you know dying everyday and the specter of your own death constantly haunting you, you’re going to feel that way. ‘How can they not support what we’re doing when my friend just gave his life for it?’

But that’s the same kind of thinking that got us into a deeper mess in Vietnam.

Soldiers died by the truckloads and the impetus became Let not these soldiers die in vain. If we just gave up right now and pulled out all of our troops, then all of these soldiers died for nothing.

But that’s not the way to see this. If anything, those soldiers sacrificed themselves so we could see how big a mistake this has been. Their deaths have meaning to me, even if their own commander-in-chief is oblivious to their sacrifice.

The longer the war goes on, the greater to the sacrifice required before he opens his eyes to reality. That is a sad thought. Hopefully, because he is such a coward in real life, maybe he’ll back down and the Congress will prevale.