Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Rangle won't cut funding

As much as they complain about being in Iraq and that the American people agree with them, they still believe that the American people would not want this war undermined. Why else would they continue to fund a war that they believe is unwinnable? They realize that they will not retain their precious power if they ever did anything that would make America unsafe:

Despite polls showing Americans overwhelmingly opposed to the war, despite the mounting American military casualties, and despite the obvious ineffectiveness of the entire enterprise until now to bring stability to Iraq, Democrats at the very heart of the party’s anti-war wing still think the political costs would simply be too high.
“The President will say we’re in business with Osama bin Laden,” said Representative Charles Rangel, who has been one of the war’s most outspoken opponents in Congress. “Anytime, politically, you have to explain what you are saying, you have a problem. And so if I am there saying, ‘Cut the funds for Iraq and the war in Iraq,’ then someone is going to say, ‘You are taking away rifles.’”
A decorated Korean War veteran, Mr. Rangel seemed acutely sensitive to the potential consequences of voting against money for the troops: “If my black ass was in Korea during the war and people got fed up with it,” he said, “and they cut off the money so I couldn’t get some snowshoes or underwear—well, g*[I edited out a swear word] you are cutting the wrong people.”

So as President George W. Bush practiced his speech, scheduled to be delivered on Wednesday, calling for a sharp increase in troop levels, the jubilant gavel-waving of Democrats threatening to slash Iraq spending amounted to an ostentatious display of … their ability to hold hearings.

[...]

“I would be reluctant to cut, but I also want to hear what the emergency is, detail where this money is actually going and what it is being used for,” said Mr. Crowley. “I don’t think it’s the intention of the Congress and the Democratic leadership to send in any way a message that we are going to undermine our troops, not supply them or cut off their funding to hasten [a withdrawal]. We want to do this in an educated way, and the only way we can do that is by holding hearings.”
“It’s certainly possible—I’m not sure whether we want to do that or not,” said Mr. Moran about the option of slashing funds for the war. “There are some people who believe we ought to give this commander in chief all the rope that he wants.”
And here we see the difference between real leaders and political animals. We appear to have many politicians but few leaders. A true leader does what they think it right despite the political cost. I hope Bush will prove to be a true leader.

Read the rest here (and you should really read it because it's interesting).