I was reading an article about the impending veto showdown on the military appropriations bill, which sets a deadline (non-binding, I might add), for withdrawal from Iraq. Bush claims he'll veto it when it hits his desk.
I say, let him. But let him do so after telling him: That's the only appropriations bill we're going to pass.
Congress speaks as the "voice of the people", and the people want a withdrawal. If Bush doesn't want to withdraw, that's fine, he can ignore the will of the people. He just has to figure out how to fund it without the aid of Congressional spending.
Make him choose between "doing what the people want", and "keeping the troops safe," because without any spending, those troops are going to run out of necessary supplies pretty quick. Maybe he can go ask some of our "many many" partners in the "coalition of the willing" to pony up some cash. That would certainly solve his problem. He just can't take the money from my wallet to pay for his bullshit war any more.
Except...
The Democrats won't do that. If you listen to Reid and Schumer, this is all about picking up seats in 2008. If they cut off funding, it would necessitate a chaotic withdrawal. There is simply no way they want that on their heads.
What they want is a political issue to run on. They don't give a rat's butt about the war itself.
Does it matter that the "will of the people" was in favor of "his" war?
The point of a representative democracy is our elected leaders give more thought, investigation, and think longer term than the general population might.
Now, you can argue those leaders should have shown better judgment then, or should show it now, but to tie official foreign policy to the whim of the latest poll is the road to madness.
James,
They could still use it as 2008 fodder. Let the GOP be the ones who "underfunded the troops". The Dems offered a sane withdrawal, the GOP offered only chaos.
Bill,
I can't remember ever seeing poll numbers that showed anyone in favor of invading Iraq outside of Bush's deluded star-chamber.
A national election cycle is not "the latest poll", the elected leaders in that representative democracy have spoken their opinion, ostensibly one that is shared by their constituents: Bring the troops home ASAP.
This isn't "some random poll", this is what we elected the '06 congressional cycle to do, and now they're doing it. Bush can either accede to the will of the people, or he can acknowledge that he speaks for a minority.
http://www.usiraqprocon.org/pop/Resources-Polls.html#F
""Would you favor (somewhat or strongly) or oppose (somewhat or strongly) having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?""
12/15/02 - 62% support
01/20/03 - 57%
01/28/03 - 63%
02/01/03 - 66%
02/05/03 - 67%
02/09/03 - 66%
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
""Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?""
3/20/03 - 71% support
3/23/03 - 74
3/25/03 - 74
3/28/03 - 69
4/02/03 - 72
4/8/03 - 74
4/10/03 - 74
6/20/03 - 67
If the election cycle of '06 was a call to get us out of Iraq, then was the cycle of '04 -- after the Iraq war, when Bush was reelected -- a call for us to stay?
wdr1, you are correct. The American people supported the invasion. Coincidentally, the percentage supporting the invasion is nearly the same percentage who believed Saddam was directly involved in 9/11.
Given that, I presume that Americans supported the President under false pretenses. The believed something about the "enemy" that was patently false, in large part because the Administration itself cultivated that idea over many months.
The Will of the People was indeed on his side. But now that it's clear we were lied to, the Will has changed its mind.