President George W. Bush, facing sharp and widespread opposition to his plan to send more troops to Iraq, insisted Sunday that he had the authority to do so, even without the approval of Congress.
"I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it," he said in an interview with CBS airing Sunday. "But I've made my decision. And we're going forward."
Oh. Excuse me. Of course. If the President decides something, far be it from Congress to intervene. Thanks, Abraham Lincoln. Actually, I'm not entirely blaming Bush (or Lincoln) for this. I know that's surprising. But our Republican-controlled Congress has been hemming and hawing ever since 2003 about this "invasion," "occupation," or whatever we want to call it. Ron Paul made an excellent observation at the start of this whole mess that the last time Congress declared war was in WWII. Yet another way in which Iraq is more like Vietnam.
4 comments:
What's got me in a tizzy about the troop surge is something quite different: Democrats crying about how we're going to be putting 20,000 more soldiers' lives in danger. I mean on what planet do reinforcements increase danger? Nothing is half so dangerous as doing a job without enough people.
They really think we're stupid, don't they?
As to Congressional power; like it or not, Bush is right. They can stop him by pulling the purse strings--and potentially harming many of our troops--but that's it. They need to be men and do that (not that I think that would be even remotely wise, just you shouldn't go about spewing empty threats) or shut up about it. Using foreign policy and national security as ploys to gain power or manipulate public opinion disgusts me.
This isn't a game, and I don't think the US can afford another Vietnam. We have to win it. And we can.
Mistakes were made, of course, and President Bush said in his speech that the responsibility was his. Big of him, I think, since every major intelligence agency in the world had the same faulty information. The point is, we're in this situation now. We can't go back and fix the past mistakes. We have to go forward together.
As Mr. Paul states: "When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and victory is elusive."
I don't know when his piece was written, but I disagree with his closing sentence if it's at all current: "No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war."
Point is we're there and we have to make sure that the lives already lost were not given in vain. We have to find the will to meet the challenge, because the challenge is not going away.
But anyhow... This situation and the shallow, emotional way in which some politicians address it really gets my goat.
Thanks for posting that link. I really enjoyed the article. Here's one I came across recently. It's an editorial from Die Welt, the largest newspaper in good old Germany (God bless my favorite European country!). http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532876/posts
Woah, I'm verbose! Better chanel that into my writing, huh?! ;-)
Brianna – I don’t think you and I will ever agree about foreign policy – which is fine, since neither of us is ever likely to be running the country (everyone else can breathe a sigh of relief).
I agree – the Democrats had an overwhelming victory because of the Iraq War, and I hope those who have voiced opposition will “be men” (or women, as the case may be) and act accordingly. They haven’t been in office very long, so we’ll see. If they do pull the purse strings, however, the executive would be insane to continue a war (conflict, whatever) without funding, and I think most people would put the blame for the resulting slaughter there.
I also agree that the United States is morally culpable for the mess in Iraq. I do disagree, however, with the motive to see that “the lives already lost were not lost in vain.” Or, as Bush said,
“I’ve met too many wives and husbands who’ve lost their partner in life, too many children who’ll never see their mom or dad again. I owe it to them and to the families who still have loved ones in harm’s way, to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.”
Such a sentiment might have been appropriate in a case where defeat or retreat was totally unacceptable no matter what because our very existence was at stake (good ol' WWII). But normally we have to think in terms of what is best for the future and abandon sunk costs. I don’t know what the solution is here. Maybe we don’t have another choice. But I think we have to realize that sending more troops has a low probability of success, considering our track record, and, as everyone admits, could lead to more bloodshed than has already occurred.
We obviously have different perspectives on Vietnam. I don’t think we should ever have gotten involved in that, either. WWII was different not because there was a declaration of war. Rather, the declaration indicated that the nation was fairly united behind the idea that war had to occur. We were willing to pay the costs no matter what. I don’t think anyone was ready to make a huge sacrifice for Iraq or Vietnam (where casualties were in the hundreds of thousands for our soldiers and millions for the Vietnamese). We merely thought it was best for the balance of world power that we become involved and, as Bush said at the beginning of the Iraq conflict, everyone thought it would be a matter of weeks rather than years. I think that is yet another example that we can’t predict the outcome of troop deployment/war/conflict, except that it will probably be bloody, expensive, and curtail freedoms.
As for the President taking responsibility – it is normal for presidents to be tied to the major policies and actions of their term. FDR will always be tied to welfare and Kennedy will always be tied to the Cuban Missile Crisis (and SHOULD be tied to the Vietnam War). Certainly some of Bush’s advisors and members of Congress were just as pro-invasion, but they did not have the power of decision he did. That is why I can’t imagine the hubris needed to desire the office of president.
Wow…I think I beat you in length, at least :-p
I agree we will never agree. ;-)
Basically, I disagree with the idea that we can withdraw forces before victory is gained and not fundamentally undermine our national security. Let's just say that if we did I would not be a bit surprised if there was another attack on American soil.
'course, my crystal ball is a bit dusty, so I may have this all wrong. Best get back to reading those History of Islam books...
And I'm glad when you write about this--you are never boring, and you always give me something to think about.
Post a Comment