Liberals and the War in Iraq

After reading an op-ed in The Washington Post by Michael Kinsley, an alleged liberal, it's clear that our side doesn't know how to do spin. Kinsley actually wrote:

Last week President Bush condescended to sign a bill authorizing $100 billion for his war, but only after any serious timetables or criteria or deadlines for troop withdrawal were stripped from the legislation.

con·de·scend·ed -- 1. to descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself. 2. to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior: He condescended to their intellectual level in order to be understood.

Does anyone really think Bush did this?

The sentence would be more accurate if it read: "Last week President Bush triumphantly signed a bill authorizing $100 billion for his war, after bullying Democrats into stripping from the legislation any serious timetables or criteria or deadlines for troop withdrawal."

tri·um·phant·ly -- 1. having achieved victory or success; victorious; successful. 2. exulting over victory; rejoicing over success; exultant.

Kinsley went on to say:

A confused Wall Street Journal editorial last week seemed to be addressing this question of how an elected representative might legitimately oppose a war in our democracy. It began by accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid of cowardice. They "claim to oppose the war and want it to end, yet they refused to use their power of the purse to end it."

But what happens if you, as a member of Congress, do attempt to use the power of the purse? Sens. Clinton, Obama and Chris Dodd (also running for president) voted against the final Iraq funding bill because all meaningful deadlines and timetables had been stripped out so that President Bush would sign it. That Wall Street Journal editorial accuses these three Democratic senators of "vot[ing] to undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission." If this is true of last week's vote, it will always be true of any attempt to cut off a war by cutting off funds. Unless the Journal is in favor of undermining U.S. troops, this makes the alleged "power of the purse" unusable.

Why should Democrats care what the Wall Street Journal says? Everyone knows the WSJ is a right-wing rag, serving corporate interests over the interests of the American people. Democrats should consider it a badge of honor to be blasted by the WSJ. It would mean they are representing the majority of Americans, who oppose the war!

The Democrats should have continued to include meaningful time-lines in the legislation, and forced Republicans and the President to explain to the American people why they want to continue funding a war that never should have been started in the first place, that has no exit strategy, and one we cannot "win."

It's well past time to put the President on the defensive.