Hi, I’m new.
I was going to leave this as a comment to the post left a few days ago, asking the question how we support our troops without supporting their mission. I decided to leave it as a post instead. Here it is.
I struggle with this question as well.
I think one possible message to send is that Bush, in his latest plan of escalation, in which he committed 20,000 extra troops to Iraq (including giving orders that 4,000 troops deploy to the Anbar province), was irresponsible.
He committed and deployed troops to Iraq without knowing if he had the funding for them to be there and work out their mission.
As such, the president intentionally put the lives of our brothers and sisters in greater risk by not having the funding they needed. Funding for escalation doesn’t simply mean for bombs and what have you, it means even the money to sustain the troops that are there. I fear the effects of having troops there without the things they need to be even marginally secure.
That is a strong message to send, one that I think most Americans could get behind. If that isn’t ground for impeachment, I don’t know what is.
Right now, Bush’s administration has focused on the democrats putting the troops in danger by not supplying the funding they need. He has created the timeline too late: Bush actually put them in danger - long before the Deomcrats - by leaving them in the desert without knowing if he had the funding for them to be there.
If you found this post interesting, you might like to read these posts as well:
Note: Please take the time to edit your comments for spelling, punctuation, succinct communication and paragraph breaks.