Despite the fact that "the war" (in Iraq) is over and that we've long-since moved into a peace-keeping/counterinsurgency phase, self-described "anti-war" activists are still working hard to undermine America's success.
After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.
In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.
Why? If we're there at the invitation of the Iraqi government then it's hardly a "war" is it?
Moira Mack, a spokeswoman for AAEI, was also at the meeting. “There was a lot of agreement that this is really the way that we can best get our message across about endless war versus end-the-war and draw clear distinctions between anti-war Democrats and pro-war Republicans. They really don’t want to end the war. This is the perfect legislative opportunity.”
Yet another "perfect opportunity" that will go nowhere and do nothing. Technically the Korean War is still ongoing also, and yet no one is fomenting dissension over the 50,000 troops we've had there for 50 years. Despite technicalities, the Iraq War is practically as over as the Korean War is, all that's left (in both cases) is to actually claim victory and consolidate the gains.
The new strategy doesn’t mean that the groups won’t be active during budget battles. “The budget debates provide an enormously rich opportunity to engage the public,” said former Maine Rep. Tom Andrews of the group Win Without War. “We’re spending $8 [billion] to $10 billion a month.”
I find it incredibly hard to believe that any of these huge-government "anti-war" people are actually concerned with constraining government spending. They'd just prefer spending this money on socialist nonsense and oppressing liberty at home.
In the House on Tuesday, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill that would make clear that no federal money could be spent to implement an agreement Bush reaches with Iraq unless it’s in the form of a congressionally approved treaty.
Members of the anti-war coalition say they are working to gather co-sponsors for the bill but that they will also attempt to insert similar language in the upcoming supplemental spending bill. Late last year, Bush requested nearly $200 billion for the war effort; Democrats gave $70 billion and will be revisiting further funding soon.
That doesn't seem too unreasonable. Do Congresscritters really want to go on record voting against such a treaty? That doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me.