North Star Writers Group

President George W. Bush last week signed the bill presented by Congress calling for $120 billion dollars in funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, without the timetables or deadlines that Congress had previously demanded.

Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton voted against the bill, but enough Democrats were in favor of it to pass it. President Bush “applauded the bipartisan effort” to give the troops their funding by the Memorial Day recess. Until now, House and Senate Democrats had been defiantly attaching deadlines and timetables to their funding bills despite knowing that the president would never sign such bills. Now, the majority has decided to lessen their largely symbolic opposition and get the troops the funding they need. But did they make the right decision?

The tricky part of this debate is that both congressional Democrats and the president could receive the brunt of finger-pointing and accusations of being unsupportive of the troops. Some argue that because Democrats proposed bills they essentially knew would be shot down, they were unconcerned about troop welfare and instead focused on partisan politics. Yet the president, in his stubbornness, refused compromise.

President Bush knows that we are in the thick of a messy and unpopular occupation in Iraq, yet he continues to defend his unwavering position that failure in the Middle East is not an option, and made his opinion quite clear in his press conference on Thursday. During the interview, he became obviously defensive, signaling to a specific member of the press and referencing the connection between victory in Iraq and the safety of his children.

Bush continues to draw concrete lines between Al Qaeda and Iraq, even when such connections have become downright laughable. Instability in Iraq provides a safe haven for Al Qaeda and breeds further terrorism on American soil, he claimed, while continuing to sidestep discussing what caused that instability in the first place. When it comes to war funding, Bush is just as defensive and steadfast, making it clear that no bill containing a timetable would ever get past him.

The troops, though thousands of miles away, are tantamount to the issue of funding. They need funding, and the government must provide it. Another month of circular proposing and vetoing would be unacceptable, and someone had to give in. The Democrats did the right thing by working with Bush and presenting appropriate funding to which they knew the president would agree. In the past month, they have solidified their position, spoken their piece and proven that they do value the troops above politics. Call it cowardice if you like, but the Democrats have emerged the bigger people. The proposed funding will last until September, when the situation in Iraq and the troop surge can be fully evaluated. It also encourages the fledgling Iraqi government to meet certain objectives in the coming months. It’s not exactly a win-win situation, but it’s as close as we’re going to come at this point.

Obama and Clinton, who voted against the bill, faced harsh criticisms from their political rivals. Sen. John McCain chimed in on Friday. "This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to Al Qaeda," he said. Obama defended himself in Chicago by asserting that the epitome of supporting the troops is to bring them home. He said that the troops “deserve a new plan.”

Both McCain’s and Obama’s rhetoric are typical political spin for the benefit of partisan voters. While it is important to portray strength and gumption in the political world, too much obstinacy characterizes the stubborn and unmovable George W. Bush, a man to whom neither Democrats nor Republicans really want to be compared. The Democrats conveyed that they demand change with their attempts to pass a bill with withdrawal deadlines, and they will continue the fight during round two in September. Any further debate just makes the whole thing that much more political, with both sides coming out mud-spattered. As it stands, the president is the only one with mud on his face, and hopefully voters will take notice and vote for change in 2008.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # JV006. Request permission to publish here.