Mr. President, defend...your...command! And do it SOON!
By smagar Posted in Archived — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[promoted by haystack because not only is every point here well argued and critically important, but the President owes WHOMEVER takes his place (Democrat OR Republican) the legacy of an intact form of government created by the Founders...not this new one these lunatics on the left are playing Russian Roullete with right now for their own personal fame and glory]
Democrats took Congress last fall in part by opposing the war in Iraq, but it is becoming clear that they view their election as a mandate for something far more ambitious--to wit, promoting and executing their own foreign policy, albeit without the detail of a Presidential election.
...
If there was any doubt that [Speaker Pelosi's] trip was intended as far more than a routine Congressional "fact-finding" trip, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos put it to rest by declaring that, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."
(All emphasis is added)
This WSJ Op-Ed is not just another reason for the Bush WH to snicker at the DingDongDems. It is one more sign that the Dem leadership, either through malice or sheer stupidity, is consciously and actively trying to undermine President Bush's foreign policy operation.
War has been called "the last argument of kings." On behalf of the soldiers now overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, "arguing" (at the risk of their lives and health) on behalf of America and freedom, the President simply cannot let this stand. He must act.
More below the fold...
I wonder if the White House has simply decided to ride out the last 21 months of its command. Now, to be honest, I can see how they'd come to such a conclusion. They know they're leaving office in less than two years, no matter what. And, they must know they've no hope of achieving any meaningful policy objectives with this Congress--a Congress that has yet to give its netroot supporters the GOP blood/scalps it demands, and therefore will do nothing that might even remotely smack of helping this President.
And, as for Iraq and Afghanistan, the WH might have reasoned that there's not much Congress can do to stop the President from waging this war throughout January 2009---at which point this President will have to stop waging it anyway. So, the WH might be thinking, why fight a PR/media battle with the Dems if the WH holds the constitutional upper hand anyway?
For all these reasons, it wouldn't surprise me if the Bush Administration is leaning toward minimizing conflict with the Dem Congress, doing what it can in Iraq/Afghanistan and closing out the next 21 months the best they can. In fact, some in that WH might see this as an opportunity to help "repair" the tone in Washington somewhat.
The Pelosi trip has changed all that.
Read what Rep Lantos said. Yes, he's a blowhard. But, "an alternative Democratic foreign policy"????
Before the sitting Executive Branch leadership decides to start polishing its resumes and lining up future speaking gigs, it should take a look at this WSJ Op-Ed from yesterday. Bing and Owen West write of how things are turning around in Anbar Province. Once known as the lawless, "wild West" portion of Iraq, Anbar Province is improving. A main reason for that--increased trust of the Iraqi and American government forces by local leaders. Tribal leaders are now pointing out Al Qaeda fighters and sympathizers hiding amongst the populace, providing a higher volume of useful raw information to coalition intelligence analysts, and funneling fresh recruits to the police and security forces.
They're doing this in part (or largely) because the Iraqis have more faith in the staying power and desire of the American government. More and more Iraqis think of the Americans as the "strong horse" that Bin Laden told us most Arabs instinctively follow.
Imagine what these Arabs must think when they see a caravan of buffoons---led by a woman who they've been told is third in line to the US Presidency!---playing kissy-face to Bashar Assad, a known sponsor of terrorism. What must the Lebanese supporters of democracy think? When Rep Lantos says he's starting an "alternative" foreign policy, what impressions does that leave in the minds of Arabs? "Isn't George Bush President of the United States," they must be thinking. "Well then, why doesn't he stop this woman? Why doesn't he at least speak out against her? Has she cowed him?"
"Perhaps President Bush isn't as strong as we'd thought..."
Once that last thought starts to take hold, our soldiers' chances for achieving success in Iraq/Afghanistan drop dramatically.
If the Arabs start to think, or at least wonder, that President Bush either lacks the strength or the will to defend his policy and the prerogatives of his office, it won't matter how brilliant Petraeus is. It won't matter how sensitive and wise and gifted our troops on the ground prove to be.
The Arabs must sense Pelosi's initiative as a direct assault on the power of a sitting President. It is a bold and blatant (albeit clumsy) effort to siphon off some of the President's authority. If the President doesn't respond, if he doesn't publicly go after Team Pelosi, then he will feed an image of him as weak/irresolute/beaten down/take your pick. Either way, it translates to an image of America as a "weak horse."
Mr. President, you may not feel like fighting this fight. But, you have no choice. It is your duty as President to preserve the power of your office. The soldiers in Iraq, whose lives are now at greater risk because they've left their secure bases and moved out to live in the dangerous neighborhoods-- IAW your new policy --need all the help they can get. Their chances for success (and a safe return) increase if the world perceives that their CINC is strong, resolute and firmly in command. The Iraqis/Afghans will respect you (and our enemies will fear you) more if they feel you're a force to be reckoned with.
Sir, with all due respect, you cannot simply sit back and chuckle at Nancy Pelosi's buffoonery. This woman (and her party) have made it very clear they don't want to work with you. They are now challenging your most important authority as President, the prerogative to direct US government actions (diplomatic and military) overseas. If you will not fight to preserve what is arguably the most basic essence of your job, then shouldn't you expect the rest of the world to wonder if there's anything you really WILL fight for?
What will you do? Again, with all due respect, doing nothing is not an option. And, the longer you wait, the more PR damage you (and our troops in harms' way) will suffer.
I agree, but I think the President would be responsible to wait until Pelosi gets home to do anything. At that point he should address the nation either from the Oval Office or, better yet, at a joint session of congress. At that point he should explain the Logan Act and remind congress that each of them was elected by their district or state, but the PRESIDENT has been elected by the entire country and he has been elected to represent the country to the world. Each member of congress has been elected to represent their district/state to the country. That's a big difference and the President needs to get out there and explain it. An address to the nation in front of a joint session of congress with Pelosi sitting behind him would be a crushing blow to her belief that she is now the acting President.
they all know about the Logan Act. They also know it hasn't been used in 200+ years. Now would, however, be a good time to start.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
As I read the Logan Act, if the Canadian Ambassador is walking down the streets of Washington DC and I walk up to him and say "Mr. Ambassador, you would make my life happier if the Canadian Government would give up it's claims to Machias Seal Island and acknowledge US ownership of the Island", then I could be sent to prison for three years. Do we really want the type of restrictions to Freedom on Speech that would entail?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island)
And especially where we are talking about Members of Congress who have stated that they are all about conducting their own foreign policy. In a war zone. With the enemy.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
As far as I know Syria doesn't count as a war zone. I'd be surprised if the Marine Guards at the US Embassy there get combat pay, the ones in Iraq do. Supporter of Terrorism yes, but we have full diplomatic relations with them. And whether or not the country is an enemy isn't part of the law. Syria=Canada=Fiji for the purposes of the law.
Sure, prosecute. Grand Jury indictment is a ham sandwich. But to quote the American Spectator (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7655) "No one has ever been prosecuted for the Logan Act". Any law where you have explain to the Jury the reason for it's existance (the quasi-war) and why it hasn't been used in two centuries is a tough sell.
And the case would definitely be played out in the Media. Which tack do you think they would more likely take: "Speaker deserves to be imprisoned for violating law" or "President attempts to use archaic law to quash actions of Democratic house". I'm betting on the second.
Bush won't have Miss Nancy arrested. But my point remains, it's time he did. The Democrats are on record as promoting their own foreign policy. This is a tad different than showing up for drinks and whores and chuckles, which are the purposes of your "normal" Congressional trips.
And if you think Syria is NOT part of a war zone - whether people are getting combat pay or not - then you're a damn fool.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
there's no chance of charging Pelosi with treason unless Syria is designated officially an "enemy", and it has not been so designated, even if it is a de facto enemy.
I agree it's part of the war zone, but our govt hasn't named it as such.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Might make you feel good to think about it, draw up the charges just because you could, then throw it in the trash and go on.
She did it because it looks like she was DOING SOMETHING. She doesn't have to actually do anything, in fact it is better for the Ds if she doesn't accomplish anything; they don't want anything to happen for which they could be held responsible. But she, unlike that nasty old Bush, was "reaching out" and the mind numbed robots really like that reaching out stuff.
In Vino Veritas
Well, congress knows that what Pelosi and her groupies are doing is wrong. However, I think the President needs to address the nation to tell those who don't follow this sort of thing that what she is doing is wrong (and explain why). A perfect setting for such a discussion would be with the President speaking to a joint session of congress with Pelosi sitting behind him.
general have done so for too long.
Pouncing on another Iranian incursion. If you want to take foreign policy by the horns, securing a future without Iranian nukes would be a worthy legacy.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
Even as Gov. of Texas Pres. Bush never seemed to fight when times like this came about.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Why do I see the White House position articulated in places like Redstate a hundred times better than I ever see them articulated by the White House?
If this is how the President used to respond when he was governor of Texas, why didn't anyone in the national conservative punditry ever mention this in 2000? Shouldn't this tendency to passivity when faced with personal political disaster have raised a few alarms in those who had seen him working up-close?
Also, if this White House is actually chucking at Nancy Pelosi's antics, they better wake up. After six years of not responding to attacks, maybe they should finally get the message that almost any outrageous actions or statements, if left unapposed, gain legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
Everyone on the left thinks that Rove and the RNC are evil geniuses- but in reality they have been pretty ineffectual. No more so than in the last 6 months. Why do we not see TV ads showing Pelosi kowtowing and messing up not only our policy but the Israelis?!! The White House has been completely ineffective at strategic communications- which is why I want Giuliani in there who can explain what it is we are doing and why!
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Given a choice between the "New Tone" and his Presidency, the President has chosen the former over the latter each and every single time. What the heck makes anyone think this will change in the next 21 months?
No matter what we say here, the Bush Administration will remain silent in the face of this. They will refrain from condemning Pelosi's attempts to barge in on the Executive's prerogative and they will continue to deal with the Democrats as if they are acting in good faith.
Anything else would violate the "New Tone". Many people have criticized Bush for his excessive loyalty to his sub-ordinates, but his loyalty to his "New Tone" fantasy dwarfs everything else.
Bush is the type of guy who would happily go to jail for a crime he didn't commit, even if he had an alibi and video evidence that he is innocent simply because denying that he committed the crime would upset the victim.
Let's be honest with ourselves, Bush is not a fighter. He has consistently chosen passivity in defending his people, policies, his own reputation from attacks and slander. I really have no hope he will change now. It's unfortunate we didn't really comprehend this in 2000.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Loyalty to subordinates is secondary to loyalty to "New Tone." Ask Donald Rumsfeld and Scooter Libby if you want corroboration on this.
President Bush is a lot like the Mark Twain main character in 'The Connecticutt Yankee in King Arthur's Court'. We sometimes need more and sooner to have a Tom Sawyer character that can 'get it done'
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
I prefer "the New Tonedeafness," but your point is dead on. This Administration wouldn't even go after (apparently) low level individuals who violated national security concerns, so why in the devil would they try to prosecute a Speaker for some law that has never been used?
Frankly, as far as I am concerned, the last 21 months of this president's term are his baby and those in his immediate employ. Given his penchant for kicking his supporters (see, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for a typical example) and rewarding his enemies (see, Teddy Kennedy's behind), let him defend himself.
As for the troops, we need to be vigilant in their defense, not out of loyalty toward the president but out of the duty we owed to them.
Ofcourse, I have no more idea than most here. But I have had this awful suspicion that Bush is so careful with Pelosi&Gang because he feels they might just be able to embarass him further. No administration of 6+ years is without skeletons and it sure seems that he's making deals with "the enemy within" and pulling his punches.
W's been this way for six years. It's not a sudden change of heart...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
This is a constitutional issue. The Constitution spells out the president's duties in this regard, and clearly separates this power from Congress. He told her not to go, and he's clearly the boss when it comes to representing U.S. foreign policy to the world. Couldn't the president sue Speaker Pelosi and take it to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds? I'm not a lawyer, but for heaven's sake, it's right there in the Constitution!!!
It's what he "won't do" that is. And he won't do anything. And no, he can't sue her.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
The President has a duty to make his policy in Iraq succeed, not only to preserve the power of his office.
He argued for the war, he began the war, and he waged the war (and I agreed with him every step of the way, except for going to the U.N. for approval). The war is far from won. Yet he does little to promote the war, even to the point of refraining from explaining and defending it to the American public. He has ceded almost all the ground on the issue to the media and to the left, who report almost nothing but bad news.
It is very serious neglect, neglect which threatens to undermine the entire purpose of the war, and which threatens to remove all present and future benefits of the war.
I am conscious of the tremendous obstacle to victory erected by the poisonous Far Left and by the cynical media. President Bush can overcome this obstacle.
In any case, he has a duty to do all he can to try to overcome it, reestablish majority support for the war effort, and win the war.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
> Yet he does little to promote the war, even to the point of refraining from explaining and defending it to the American public. He has ceded almost all the ground on the issue to the media and to the left, who report almost nothing but bad news. <
Absolutely true. That is the root cause. The three most deadly words any Republican politician can say are "politics doesn't matter", and the Bush Administration (and the former Republican leadership in Congress) have been saying exactly that for years.
A good example is when it came time for Bush to give his speech outlining the new Iraq policy. Lots of people saw this as Bush's last chance to reclaim his 9/11 leadership of the country, the guy with the bull horn who said "And the ones who knocked down these buildings will hear us". It was Bush's chance to pick up that bull horn and rally the country once more. He could have finally started answering years of Democratic lies about the war. Democratic leaders like Reid look scared, and later admitted it.
What happened? At the last minute the Administration cut an already short speech below 20 minutes. An Administration aide later said "We decided progress in the war is all that matters". In other words, the deadly words, politics doesn't matter.
Bush gave a short little speech, preaching to the choir, which those who already believed in the War On Terror understood and agreed with. It covered little new ground, and changed few minds. As you put it, he continued to "ceded almost all the ground on the issue to the media and to the left, who report almost nothing but bad news."
i hadn't thought of the points you bring up.
i still hope the president will come around, but there seems almost no chance of it
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
I think Bush should just be quiet for now and continue to let everybody else in the world blast her. Let her friends in the media continue to blast her. The only people standing up for her are the netroots like Greenwald.
He can hold a press conference and yell at her - but it isn't like she will listen to him. She refused to listen on her trip to Syria when Bush tried to warn her to be quiet. It would probably just make her more defiant if he publicly blasted her.
Plus, it's his job. It's not like she has any power. She can't take away his power.
blasting her, and right now, it's more important that everyone else blast her.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
unless, of course, some Republican has the stones to denounce Pelosi, in which event the president will tell him or her to shut up.
But your point is well taken. Bush's silence, which would happen anyway, has allowed Pelosi's MSM allies the leeway to bash her.
Hillary's presidential perogatives are what the MSM Pelosi-bashers are defending. They don't want the this sort of thing to happen later in reverse.
When this Skeletor in a scarf denied Jane Harmon the job as chief of the House Intell Cte, I knew Nancy was even dumber than John Murtha, whom she preferred to the much smarter Steny Hoyer. The Senate has girlie-man Reid croaking his double-digit IQ twaddle about GWB not being able to veto the spending bill on Iraq because Bush was not a king. Who does that simpleton think HE is?
The Dem leadership is on a race to the bottom.
When taunted by a Liberal in Parliament that he was going to die "on the gallows or of a vicious social disease," Disraeli replied "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
So whadaya think? Maybe he should appoint Robert F Turner to investigate/prosecute her for violating the Logan Act
John E.