... because it's a Republican argument and it's just silly.
Holy paychecks, Batman! We're gonna have to hitchhike home!
Not surprisingly, Barack Obama presented one of the more egregious examples of it on his Face the Nation appearance of 01/14/07:
Well, I think that all of us are concerned in making sure that whatever resolutions or legislation or proposals that are out there don't potentially strand troops that are already there. I am fully supportive of Senator Kennedy's intent, and I think Senator Levin is as well, and the majority of the Democratic caucus is interested in figuring out how do we constrain the president. I personally think that if there are ways that we can constrain and condition what the president's doing so that four to six months from now we are beginning a phased withdrawal while making sure that the troops on the ground have the equipment that they need to succeed, then that is going to be the area that I'm most interested in supporting. (my emphasis)
"Strand troops"? This is just downright silly. Using riders to the appropriation process to regulate Cheney's and Bush's conduct of the Iraq War is one of the ways that the Democratic Congress can rein in their adventurism and foolish misconduct. Yet here is Obama, a potential Democratic candidate and a favorite of the punditocracy (for the moment), talking about using appropriations to do something about the war as though it were a sudden layoff where you just cut off the paychecks and confiscate the weapons of American soldiers and say, "Thanks for your service. Hope you can find your way home."
What kind of clown act is this? It's hard to imagine that anyone besides the most moronic of the warbloggers might actually believe that's what we're talking about. Yet here is an allegedly serious, national leader of the Democratic Party talking this silly trash. Just stop it, or stop going on the dadgum talk shows undermining the Dems' ability to restrain this madness.