[Dean's World] Aziz P: will Democrats defund the war?

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
will Democrats defund the war?
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1159451342.shtml


   Some have suggested that if the Democrats take power in November, they
   will move to cut off funding for the war. The basic argument is that
   Charlie Rangel will take over the House Ways and Means Committee and
   then turn off the spigot for war appropriations. For example,
   [1]RedState quotes Rangel via [2]Bloomberg:

     [H]e "cannot think of one" of President George W. Bush's first-term
     tax cuts that merit renewal. He also said no discussion would be
     possible on overhauling Social Security until Bush dropped a plan
     to create individual accounts funded by payroll taxes.

     "If they want to get that on the agenda, they better take
     privatization off the table," Rangel, 76, an 18-term New York
     lawmaker, said in an interview. "Trade will be easy to work out
     some agreement, and we can probably do some minor things with the
     tax code."

   In other words, Rangel will seek to repeal the Bush tax cuts -
   increasing funding to the federal government, so that we can actually
   spend money for the war on terror, not borrow money for the war on
   terror. Yet how does RedState interpret the quote above?

     if the Democrats take back the Congress... they'll defund not just
     Iraq, but the global war on terror.

   This is not just partisan hack talking point rhetoric, but the
   official position of the White House itself:

     Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to
     block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President
     Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would
     satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us
     alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity
     toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still
     not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious
     extremists can be appeased."

   These are shameful smears of the Democrats' position. Rather than face
   the actual proposed policies of the Democrats, which are certainly
   open to debate if considered honestly, the Administration invokes the
   strawmen that the Democrats want to block money for the war, and want
   to "appease" terrosist to get them to "leave us alone." That portrayal
   of the Democrats' position is total nonsense and as the WaPo points
   out, completely unsupported by any factual basis:

     Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday
     could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or
     suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to
     leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials
     said those are logical interpretations of the most common
     Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops
     from Iraq.

   Logical interpretation? As Ezra Klein [3]snarks, "I'm looking forward
   to the next press conference, when Rummy drags out a chalkboard and
   treats the American people to an ontological primer so we're better
   equipped to follow future speeches."

   Look, the reason Democrats support a timetable for withdrawal is
   because they argue that our presence in Iraq is actually helping the
   terrorists more than it hurts them. The recently-released NIE
   certainly provides evidence to support this view. By withdrawing, the
   argument goes, we remove the cause celebre for the instability of
   foreign jihadis flooding Iraq - who have a disproportionate
   contribution to the worsening security situation there. No less than
   General Abizaid himself has acknowledged that the foreign jihadis are
   the most intractable problem threatening security. And it also is
   worth noting that the [4]overwhelming majority of Iraqis want US
   troops to leave Iraq as well. And an even greater majority believe
   that the US won't leave even if asked!

   Now I for one am still unsure whether a timetable-driven withdrawal is
   better or not than keeping most of our forces in the theater and
   changing their strategy. Even if I favored a timetable I'd still think
   that we would need a sizable contingent of response forces available.
   If we sent half the troops home and the other half to Afghanistan it
   might be better in the long run for winning the war.

   Still, the point remains that the argument for a timetable withdrawal
   is based firmly in Iraqi security concerns and a genuine and sincere
   desire to win the war. Not let it continue to fail. Interpreting the
   Democrats' position as defunding and running is not logical, its
   mendacious. I'll even go so far as to say it falls outside the
   boundary of spin and firmly into the realm of a lie.

   Let's have the debate about the merits of timetable withdrawal or not.
   RedState and the Administration don't want that debate. Why? Are they
   so unsure of the merits of their own position that they feel it won't
   withstand scrutiny?

References

   1. http://redstatemobile.com/node/12434
   2. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aRYptWMsTqqk
   3. http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/08/logical_interpr.html
   4. http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2006/09/what_iraqis_wan.html