I'm a bit torn on this issue. On the one hand, denying funding for the war would potentially put our ground troops in danger, and might not be the wisest choice for the country in the short term. On the other hand, this presidency has made it abundantly clear that it intends to carry out agenda regardless of what the american people and congress think, and consistantly uses the troops as a shield against any action that congress might take.His comments reminded me off this Doonesbury strip. Can't post it here without it being unreadable, but if you would click that link you could read it.
It's a bit like some friends of mine that live (along with their young children) with their parents/inlaws and refuse to make any substantive effort to move out at any point in the forseeable future. The parents are fed up with it, but they won't put their grandkids at risk by actually booting the freeloaders out to fend for themselves and grow up. You're stuck: Either you do the right thing for the moment and perpetuate/enable the irresponsible behavior, or you take a path that looks horrible up front, but presents hope for the future.
Here's the thing though: Cutting off funds doesn't put the troops at risk, any more than kicking the kids out of the house really puts the grandkids at risk. It means you have to curtail your behavior and spend your money wisely. In the case of the war, it means that (if the President is responsible) the war ends. No money = we leave. Now, the president could decide to continue to field an under-funded force, but that would be his mistake, not Congress'. This really isn't about Congress sending our troops out to fight without bullets. All the whining and complaining coming out of the White House is essentially analogous to your average 4 year old flailing about on the floor and screaming because Mommy said "no".
Frankly, I think it's about time that someone reigned in our spoiled brat of an executive branch.
Also watch that Mint Royale Video. Now!
No comments:
Post a Comment