Post-Gazette Editorial – 5/27/07

This page was last updated on May 28, 2007.

The Iraq vote: Congress fails to stop a foolish war; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; May 27, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Thursday, before its Memorial Day break, yielding to President Bush, Congress voted to continue funding the Iraq war unconditionally.

“Members of Congress did this in spite of the actions of the American electorate in the 2006 elections, the latest poll results that show 30 percent approval for Mr. Bush and previous fervent pledges on the part of many of them -- especially the Democrats -- that they would not continue to fund the war without inclusion in the legislation of a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.”

[RWC] Since the editorial mentioned President Bush’s approval rating, why didn’t it note the Democrat-led Congress has an average approval rating of 32.6% for May, and a Gallup survey indicated an approval rating of 29%?

The “actions of the American electorate in the 2006 elections” is a pile of BS. If you recall, Democrats ran on no platform and a significant number took decidedly non-Democrat positions on certain issues. In truth, the 2006 Democrat campaign was all about “Macaca” and a homosexual Republican representative. Other than a few on the fringe, no Democrats campaigned on surrender in Iraq.

If it was the will of the people to surrender in Iraq, why did Democrats need to be “bribed” with $20 billion of pork barrel spending just to get the bare minimum of votes (218) required to pass the original House bill with “a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces?” Remember, Democrats hold 233 seats in the House and so they should have easily passed the bill without pork had the 2006 election been about surrendering in Iraq.

“They did this in spite of the fact that those who favored forcing Mr. Bush to take steps to bring the war to an end through congressional action had him, in effect, cornered. He claimed to need the $100 billion in the bill to continue the war. In principle -- although not in fact -- he would have been forced to slow up the war if he didn’t get the money. (In fact, money could have been transferred from other parts of the nearly $500 billion Defense Department budget to cover Iraq war expenses if Congress had refused the new money in the supplemental appropriation.)”

[RWC] To be consistent with history, we need to substitute “Democrat” for “Congress” in most places in this editorial. As a reminder, when Republicans held the majority in Congress, liberals tended to blame Republicans and not Congress when bills passed the liberals didn’t like.

“Mr. Bush also continued to insist that he would veto any bill with a timetable for withdrawal in it. Congress could have sent him another one of those and let him veto it: no bill, no money, one way or the other start to force him to end the war.

“But Congress let him off the hook by passing a bill, with weak or no limits on his actions in Iraq. (The bill’s guidelines for what the Iraqi government ought to do to perpetuate the funding are entirely unenforceable.)”

[RWC] The PG appears worried about letting President Bush “off the hook,” but appears to have no problem letting enemies bent on our destruction “off the hook.” Effectively, we have another editorial conveying the idea President Bush is the enemy.

“Why did Congress do that? For some of them it was the money. In addition to the $100 billion or so for the Iraq war, there was also in the bill another nearly $20 billion in funding for other projects that different members of Congress want, projects that they had perhaps promised to campaign donors.

“For others, it was to avoid future opponents being able to accuse them of not having supported our troops. The problem with that reason for voting Mr. Bush more money for the war is that the best thing anyone could do for our troops is get them out of Iraq’s killing fields as soon as possible after four years there.”

[RWC] It appears the PG forgets our troops are volunteers. Whatever their individual reasons, our troops are in Iraq by choice. Since our troops are there by choice, isn’t “the best thing anyone could do for our troops” to give them what they need to prevail and cheer them on?

“The sole southwestern Pennsylvania member of Congress who had the courage to vote not to give Mr. Bush more money for his war was Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills. Those who went along with Mr. Bush included, in addition to Pennsylvania Sens. Bob Casey and Arlen Specter, Reps. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, and John Murtha, D-Johnstown.”

[RWC] This is not President Bush’s war. It is our war as a country, just like all previous wars in which we participated. Remember, Congress, including quite a number of Democrats, approved the war.

The PG must feel betrayed. Except for Rep. Murphy, the PG endorsed the cited group of legislators in 2004 and/or 2006.

“November 2008 is still some time off, but this was a vote not to forget: Those members who didn’t stand up to Mr. Bush this time voted to prolong this long, foolish war.”

[RWC] I agree, “this was a vote not to forget,” just as this was an editorial not to forget.