Funding the war

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.