Funding the Occupation

Still wavering on the return to blogging. Since my internet connection is down at home and there may be a problem with me doing it at work, I don't know how long I'll be able to keep at this "return". Also, it's sometimes difficult to be serious about the world. Especially if you stand back a bit from it. And nobody ever told you this was a serious blog.

Anyway....

Proposed Troop Withdrawal Timetable

First of all I should say that, to take charge of the debate, actual anti-war proponents and people who seriously want the American troops out of Iraq ought to stop referring to this as a war and call it an occupation (like King Abdullah - see previous post) whenever they talk about it.

The outcome of the Senate vote took both parties by surprise. Republicans were stung by the defection of Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has not supported a timetable for withdrawal before although he is his party’s most outspoken critic of the war in Congress.

“There will not be a military solution to Iraq,” Mr. Hagel declared. “Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. It doesn’t belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.”

The Democrats also gained the vote of Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, who voted against a withdrawal date just two weeks ago.

“People want our troops home,” Mr. Nelson said.

  NYT article

Yes, and sadly, that won't be happening.

Congress members know that won't be happening. This is a show for the next round of elections. "I voted for it." Or, "I voted against it." Whichever serves in your district. Bush has promised to veto the legislation. Would Hagel vote to override a veto? Would 2/3 of them? Barely over the necessary half voted for it in the first place.