Totally radical

ANDY FITZPATRICK

Congressional Democrats are pushing a bill for drastically decreased funding for the Iraq war, as well as a timetable to pull military forces out of the war zone. President Bush has promised to veto the bill, and it is highly unlikely a veto override could be mustered in this case. So the whole thing, while sincere, is really more of a statement than anything else. The Democrats are doing it because they believe the war is wrong, and this is how they can affect it. The Republicans take comfort in it, because they believe in drawing the war out and are hoping this shows Americans that the Democrats are cut-and-runners in a time of war.

So, business as usual.

The problem, which is frankly troubling, is this comment from a White House statement:

"These votes, like the dozens of previous failed votes, put the interests of radical interest groups ahead of the needs of our military and their mission."

This goes right to the heart of the matter, I think. It's an attempt to cast the United States Armed Forces into the role of an entity that is serving its own ends. In other words, the country can't change the course of the war by virtue of the fact that the war is occurring.

I'll say it again, because when I realized it, it took me a while to process the information without, at the same time, my brain exploding.

The Bush administration is attempting to rationalize the war on the grounds that it exists. Bringing the troops home, you see, is in conflict with that. If the troops are home and, you know, not dying, well...what kind of war is that? They have a mission! If you change that mission, then they won't have that mission anymore! Therefore, you can't change the mission!

By the way, those "radical interest groups"? Them's you and me. Of course, if you support the war, you're likely to not trust such things. I have my own reservations about polling, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I think we can use the president's rationale for a lot of things, though. For example, why should we even have elections every four years? The people voted Bush in, right? Why would we change that? Shouldn't he just stay in office? Aren't we just putting the interests of radical interest groups ahead of Bush and his mission?

For that matter, why should I collect a paycheck every few weeks? Aren't I just putting my own radical needs for alcohol ahead of Gannett's mission to save money?

All of that being said, I think this is a fight that will continue far into the next election. Bush won't allow the war to end before he leaves office, and if someone like Rudy Giuliani takes office, we'll all have a new definition of "radical interests."

Note: Please, please don't stop sending me paychecks.