If at First You Don't Fail, Cut the Funding to Ensure You Do

Why is it that I am never surprised with what comes out of the likes of Dennis Kucinich? (Well, him and Rangle, and Waxman, and Pelosi, and Boxer, and well you get my point.) Those Dems standing with a minimum of one foot in the fever swamp have been screeching that Iraq is the same as Vietnam. Now we have them making noise as to ensuring that that statement is completely true.

"We need to get out," said Kucinich, responding to a comment by a member of a conservative think tank. "And we need to get out through cutting off funds. Once we determine to cut off funds, the money is in the pipeline for an orderly withdrawal."

The congressmember elaborated, "Until you cut off funds, the administration is free to ... keep the troops there, as the President has stated again and again he's going to do. ... The White House is prepared to stay in Iraq through the end of its term."

Kucinich insisted that Democrats have to come up with a "new direction" for the Iraq quagmire. "And that new direction must be out. It has to be 'UN in, US out.'"

The UN? You have got to be kidding me. With that type of proposal can anyone with any serious intelligence not see why this flavor of Dem is going to ensure failure?

Let's map this out.

1. The UN, that hugely agile military responder (see Israel/Hezbollah and UNIFIL) are the ones expected to come into Iraq to secure the situation?
   
2. Who will be providing the replacement for the approximately 140,000 US troops? (Hint: Historically the US provides the vast majority of all UN troops in very difficult conflicts. Note Yugoslavia, Korea. Shall I go on?)
   
3. Who in the UN will be providing the funding for this military action? (Note the note in 2 and add the word Money.)
4. Who in the UN will be providing the infrastructure for this large military force? (See Note in 3 and add more money and now man power and equipment.)
5. Who will be providing air support? (See Note in 4 and make a wild guess.)

So Kucinich wants the US to pull out, put on a blue helmet and go back in under a foreign commander and have a couple thousand UN rapists join the party. Yeah. That makes sense. Blood and Treasure still brought to you by the USA. (Of course with extra meddling from countries that won't participate in the manning but get a say in how the UN authority will handle the resurrection.)

And how is it that Kucinich and his ilk actually believe that the UN's tactics in this effort would be more successful. Should we expect the "peace keepers" who hide in their enclaves (Lebanon) or watch as civilians are massacred (Kosovo) will lead to a peaceful conclusion?

And when exactly will they be relieving the US troops? With the agility demonstrated in Lebanon I'd expect you'd start seeing them around 2008. And if Kucinich has his way, the US would be leaving immediately without an actual hand off. Bet nothing would happen in the interim.

Afghanistan is working because NATO is involved NOT the UN. The US still is providing the vast majority of the muscle there as well.

The article goes on to quote that bastion of chickenshit liberals George McGovern. I won't bother, since it's readily apparent that they don't have a clue to share between the lot of them.

I also find it disconcerting that I keep finding these blogs at ProgressiveU as news pieces. I don't believe I've ever seen PajamasMedia on google news searches. Yet I constantly find stunning incite from ProgressiveU like this:

Wow! This type of response would certainly back the neocons into the corner. They want to send more troops but they've made no effort to include the United Nations. They keep trying to get Bolton into the U.N. so he can continue on his seek and destroy mission.

Clearly, Bush is afraid to include the budget for the war within the BUDGET and instead has sent up an "emergency funding bill" to the Congress where few members of Congress want to vote no on it. Afterall, they don't want to be accused of "Not supporting the troops!"

As much as i hate the idea of being seen as "starving" the troops for funding and equipment, so long as we keep GIVING Bush money to burn adn spend unwisely, he'll keep wasting it! Tough love people, tough love!!!

Either way it'll be interesting seeing how this plays out... I dont know who it really affects WELL on...

Can anyone see a blogger without a clue? I see no evidence, in the post or otherwise, that would indicate that Bush is "afraid" of adding Iraq war funding into the budget. In fact the last budget did contain Iraq war funding. Here in fact is a simple search for the word Iraq in the 2007 budget, and there were 16 results. Here is the result of where the military funding of Iraq are to be proposed.

    
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) any request for funds for a fiscal year after fiscal year
   2006 for an ongoing military operation overseas, including 
    operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, should be included in the annual 
    budget of the President for such fiscal year as submitted to 
    Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code;
       (2) the President should submit a budget request for fiscal year
   2006 setting forth estimates for ongoing military operations
   overseas during such fiscal year; and
       (3) any funds provided for a fiscal year for ongoing military
   operations overseas should be provided in appropriations Acts for
   such fiscal year through appropriations to specific accounts set
   forth in such appropriations Acts.]

Funny. Looks like it's in the Budget and going to be in the budget. Doesn't mean there can't be any special appropriations, it just means the funding in general is required to be in the budget.

As for "Tough Love" well, I suppose that tough love will do lots to secure the country against terrorist threats. Tough Love will ensure that Iraq doesn't become a terrorist staging ground for attacks against the west. Tough Love will pretty much ensure that those Americans who have been wounded or died in Iraq and their families won't get the message that their sacrifice was in vain.

I really hope the Dems aren't as foolish as Kucinich.