Who put them in charge?
Since their accession to power in January, parts of the 110th Congress have been inching ever closer to direct confrontation with the President over the nation’s course in Iraq.
Some, like Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha, have spent the last months cobbling together legislation that allows them to undercut the war effort without having to assume political or moral responsbility for their misdeeds.
As reported by The Victory Caucus, the Pelosi/Murtha camp has settled on a plan that places numerous restrictions on the scale and timing of the troop surge, just as General Petraeus and his forces are beginning to put the President’s new plan into motion.
For example, the general provisions of the legislation forbid the funding and deployment of units that are not "fully mission capable." However, it is not mentioned that no U.S. unit is deemed "fully mission capable" until it after it has arrived in Iraq and taken over the equipment and positions of the soldiers that preceded it.
The law also forces the President to ask Congress for persmission to extend the deployment of Army and Marine units past their normal schedules of 365 and 210 days, respectively. No one has as yet made the case why the President, the constitutionally-mandated Commander-in-Chief, must submit to counterproductive legislative guidelines about how he can deploy U.S. forces.
Several bloggers have caught on to this story and are denouncing the legislation for the fraud that is is. Dean Barret has picked up the unconstitutionality of the bill and calls it a "surefire loser." Ed Morrissey labels it an "intrusion" on Presidential authority and notes correctly that it "puts the United States in a position where we have 535 Commanders in Chief — definitely not what the founders had in mind."
What’s more, the anti-war crowd is complicating their folly by failing to enunciate a real plan about how to deal with what would happen in Iraq after U.S. forces "redeploy." Specters of massive, bloody civil war between Shias and Sunnis seem not to bother them, nor does the likelihood that Iraq would become a safe haven for embolded terrorists. They want us to believe that everything would be fine.
The nation deserves better than this. If some in Congress are seeking to engage the nation in a debate over the future of Iraq, they need to muster the courage of their convictions and say what they really mean – "We believe the war is lost and we want to come home. We don’t care about what happens after."
Saying this would put the choice facing our nation into stark contrast. On the one had, Americans would see legislators trying to underhandedly and unconstitutionally legislate withdrawal from Iraq regardless of consequences. On the other, they’d see a President who has admitted error and adopted a policy that Iraqis say is already beginning to show signs of success.
Which do we want – possible victory, or certain defeat?
- Paging President Trump - August 14, 2024
- Will Harris-Biden defend our enemies? - August 13, 2024
- God bless “Flynn” - August 12, 2024