- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn's argument assumes that a Congressional vote to de-fund Iraq operations would result in an orderly withdrawal of the U.S. military from Iraq. But what if President Bush orders that no withdrawal take place? What if he says, "Gosh, it's a shame the Democrats want to deprive our troops of the things they need to defend themselves, but the U.S. presence in Iraq is necessary to protect Americans from Al Qaeda, so if the Democrats force our troops to throw rocks at the enemy, that is what they'll have to do."
It seems that Alter's position is premised on two underlying assumptions: (1) that Bush would not allow a withdrawal to follow a de-funding vote; and (2) that Bush would, successfully, blame the Democrats for any resulting harm to U.S. troops. I don't think the Democrats should have capitulated to the threat of that scenario, but isn't that what they did? In other words, the notion that de-funding would harm the troops is sad and twisted, but given the character of the man who occupies the White House, not necessarily irrational.
