Editorial

Funding the war

Sunday, May 20, 2007

As last week came to a close, congressional leaders were looking for a compromise on funding for the Iraq war that would pass White House muster. While many Americans are fed up with the political games involving the funding measure, frustration levels are growing among senators and representatives too.

U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of Cape Girardeau and 10 of her moderate Republican colleagues met recently with President Bush to express their concerns about the war. Emerson also showed her contempt for the political shenanigans that resulted in a veto and promises of additional vetoes until a responsible plan is put on the president's desk.

Both sides were softening their positions last week, and compromise efforts appeared to be making some headway.

What's at stake is funding for U.S. troops already in Iraq. The presidents and his commanding generals want to make sure there is adequate funding for those soldiers to complete the mission of stabilizing Iraq while the Iraqi government takes on more and more responsibility for its own security.

In an effort to make their political point, Democrats in the House and Senate had included pullout timetables along with their funding plan, a combination they knew would be vetoed. And they knew they didn't have the votes to override the veto. So a political exercise delayed a decision on the funding while sending a signal around the world that the U.S. is weakening its resolve on a solution that would bolster democracy in Iraq.

This is not the time for political games. This is the time for leadership, the kind that seeks compromise without abrogating the fundamental principles of democracy and a stable government.

Emerson's independence on this issue is well warranted. The key is to provide funding for the military reality at hand while seeking a workable plan to turn over the affairs of Iraq to a stable government.

Comments

View 3 comments or respond

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below. Our goal is to create a place for robust and civil discourse about our community, state and nation.

The key to all of this is letting the President know there are 2 branches of government. He has had anything he wants handed to him by the previous Congress. Now is time for elections next year and some of those same people know they will not return if they don't do as the majority in their districts or states want. They have been toeing the Republican party line up until it cost them their seat. Now they are talking the same as 70% of Americans. In SEMO as long as Rep. Emerson supports and defends the farm subsidies, she is safe.

-- Posted by cannedheat on Sun, May 20, 2007, at 7:51 AM
This war against Iraq has nothing to do with American security, American freedom, Iraqi independence or anything else that Bush and the Republicans cite as an excuse for more deaths.

Watch what Bush does, not what he says. He has been completely consistent in his focus: Loot the American treasury in any way possible, until there is nothing left to steal. The war is his primary method of looting our treasury and turning our money over to the rich industrialists. This war has cost us nearly $500 billion. Where do you think this money has gone? Certainly not to the men and women who are dying over there. It has gone to the corporations who are supplying the war, with a large percentage of it going to Cheney's Halliburton Corporation in no-bid contracts. And even then, Halliburton has stolen billions more in undelivered services.

We are now in debt to China because of this war and we are getting deeper in debt to them every day.

Bush will not withdraw the troops. So many folks consider him a failed president. But he doesn't, because he is exceeding his goals of turning over our assets to the corporations, and he will not stop until the day we kick him out of office. But by then it will be too late. He will have looted us so completely in foreign debt that it will take at least another generation to recover.

He is a war criminal. He invaded a sovereign country and lied to us for our support. He is directly responsible for over three thousand American deaths and more than fifty thousand Iraqi deaths. He refused to allow America to join the World Court, knowing full well that if we had, he could now be tried as a war criminal and murderer, and sentenced to death himself, along with Cheney and Karl Rove.

And that is what should happen.

-- Posted by JoJax on Sun, May 20, 2007, at 12:26 PM
I can't believe someone would say that the president, vice-president, and a staffer should be put to death. Who are you to make that decision? That's ridiculous!

-- Posted by dan dial on Sun, May 20, 2007, at 12:46 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires a subscription.

More to explore