1) Commit to an escalated and open-ended war in Iraq which will spread out over the entire region of the Middle East and beyond (meaning more terrorist attacks here at home), lasting decades and costing in excess of $8 billion a month (which, in itself, is going to necessitate reinstating the draft, since we are spending about half a million dollars per private contractor each year for doing the same job that we pay a member of the U.S. military about a tenth of that amount - We have about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and about 100,000 private contractors, so you do the math), or,
2) We proceed with Bush's and Cheney's impeachment and removal from office, because the only other option (a majority of Republicans go to Bush and tell him that they will not support him any longer), isn't going to happen by the look on Lindsay Graham's face when Joe Biden suggested it.
My guess is that Bush and Cheney will have us embroiled in war with Iran soon enough (within the next three or so months) so that Democrats won't have the political will to threaten to cut off the increased military spending that is going to be required. That's been the Bush-Cheney style. They do what they want to do by employing whatever tactics are necessary to prevent attempts to block them. Fear and fury, shock and awe, it works as well here on the homefront (for confusing and overwhelming all sober and considered discussion) as it does in Baghdad. And just in time for the 2008 campaign's kick into full swing.
Transcript from Meet the Press, January 7, 2007:
MR. RUSSERT: You said the other day that this is President Bush’s war, and there’s...
SEN. BIDEN: It is.
MR. RUSSERT: ...there’s really little Democrats can do. Why not cut off funding for the war?
SEN. BIDEN: I’ve been there, Tim. You can’t do it.
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
SEN. BIDEN: You can’t do it. It’s—what—because it made sense in the Constitution when you said you could cut off funding when you had no standing army. We have a standing army with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. You can’t go in and, like a tinker toy, and play around and say, “You can’t spend the money on this piece and this piece and”—he—able—he’ll be able to keep those troops there forever constitutionally if he wants to.
MR. RUSSERT: Why not have legislation then that would cap the number of troops in Iraq?
SEN. BIDEN: Because it’s very difficult to—it’s constitutionally questionable whether or not you can do that. I think it is unconstitutional to say, “We’re going to tell you you can go, but we’re going to micromanage the war.” When we wrote the Constitution, the intention was to give the commander in chief the authority how to use the forces, when you authorize them, to be able to use the forces. And so, look, what we have to be doing here is the president—the only way this is going to change, Tim, and I’ve been saying—I’m a broken record on this—is when a majority of Lindsey’s colleagues, Republicans, say to the president, “Mr. President, enough. We are not going to support you any more,” that’s when the president will begin to change his policy. That’s when we begin to listen to bipartisan groups. That’s when we begin to listen to the majority of the expert opinion in this country.
Filed under: war in Iran, war in Iraq, Tim Russert, Meet the Press, Joe Biden, Lindsay Graham, Bush, The Constant American, Constant American, Technorati Tag, Technorati Tags, tags, categories