http://www.anonymousliberal.com/index.htmlIf you don't pass the bill I want, I'll harm the troops President Bush has stated in no uncertain terms that if Congress fails to pass the war supplemental that he wants--one without any timetables or benchmarks--"the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones." This claim, as many others have already pointed out, is a deeply disingenuous one. Congress has in fact appropriated every penny Bush requested; all he needs to do is sign the bill. If Bush chooses instead to veto that bill, then by any reasonable measure he is the one most directly responsible for the funding shortfall that would ensue.But while many journalists and pundits seem to understand this, at least on some level, none of them have bothered to follow these premises to their logical conclusion. As I pointed out a few weeks ago, there is no logical reason why the cutting off of war funding has to result in increased danger to our troops. Bush wants us to believe that a reduction in funding will somehow inevitably result in troops running out of ammo in the middle of a firefight or running out of fuel in the middle of a patrol. But that's nonsense. The only way that would happen is if President Bush were to react to the funding shortfall (which he would be responsible for creating) by insisting that the war continue on unchanged, without any of the necessary supplies.But to do so would be an act of inexcusable recklessness and indifference toward the well-being of our troops.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra