Redstate

So pay close attention to them, they insist!

By haystack Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

[image courtesy New York Times-Photo by Doug Mills]

Congress has no Constitutional power over the Commander in Chief in matters of the execution of a war. Of course, our dear misguided friends on the left and their Political heroes would assert this Iraq "mess" is not actually a war, so all bets are off.

Interestingly enough, in the much-heralded "Levin amendment", just such an admission is made in one of the cheesy "whereas" ramblings inserted just to make everything sound cool and official...

We respect the constitutional authorities given a President in Article II, Section 2, which states that `The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States;' it is not the intent of this Act to question or contravene such authority, but to accept the offer to Congress made by the President on January 10, 2007, that, `if members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust'

In admitting that Congress has no such power, while asserting in this litany of "whereas" that the President invited any with a better plan to bring it forward, the new majority figured a non-binding resolution (rife with op-ed, photo-op, and sound bite opportunities) was their perfect chance to make the Commander in Chief an offer he couldn't refuse.

Problem here, of course, is that he did.

More below the fold...

The Democrats, on the heels of their "sweeping victory" have a big problem.

In presuming their return to majority status to be a mandate from the American people, they have behaved in accordance with those wishes they convinced themselves their constituents expected of them when they pulled the lever for their favorite "D". They didn't actually ASK many of them, relying instead on the polls they selectively chose to believe were reflective of our "National mood".

The National mood, of course, was that of being sick of the lack of progress on meaningful legislation, tired of the abandonment of the agenda on the part of then-majority Republicans, and sick and tired of all the partisan bickering between the children we sent to Washington to do our bidding.

We figured that, since "they ALL suck", a change in who gets the "final say" was in order to shake things up a bit. Voters, at whatever level of turnout, seem to always get this right-how, I haven't quite figured out...but it's what makes America what it is.

I will be the first to admit that the Republicans deserved to be admonished at the ballot box for their ineptitude, and I accept (sometimes begrudgingly) that this loss will ultimately be good for them; that it will somehow draw the pus out of the infection that has become big-government Conservatism, and will ultimately heal to a scar we can live with going forward even though it will always be visible on the face of Conservatism in our future history.

Admittedly, Americans are weary of Iraq-Republicans and Democrats alike. Admittedly, there have been mistakes a-plenty in the conduct of this war. Admittedly, the reasons for entering Iraq have ebbed and flowed, at times, in the name of political expediency. The problem America faces today is (or should be) more basic than all the hindsight quarterbacking the kids up on the Hill are currently busying themselves with on our dimes and at the expense of American, Coalition, and Iraqi lives.

I posited here that the Democrats do NOT support our Troops. While I expected huge cries of foul play and screams of "unfairness" from Democrats and Liberal-leaning readers, all I got for my troubles was an analysis of why the war was wrong. All we seem to get in the American dialog, in general, is denunciations of the President's legitimacy (Gore REALLY won) and this assertion that the best thing we can do to show support of our Soldiers and their Commander is to pull the rug out from under them, err, I mean pull them out of harm's way.

Consider this alternate reality for a moment.

I see, all around me, this complete detachment from the realities of this war on the parts of far too many Americans. Among this list, sadly, are the opportunists in the jester's court of Democrat politicians. Where their primary focus should be on the interests of America, and the far-reaching implications of the fight in Iraq and against Radical Islam, instead we see the focus of their energies being directed at making a point.

Not willing to allow a defeated move to embarrass the President and humiliate our Soldiers in the Senate stand, the House will will renew their OWN efforts, because:

Under House rules, Democratic leaders have the authority to advance a measure to the floor for three days of debate and a vote.

That stands in contrast to the Senate, where Republicans have so far blocked an attempt by Democrats to hold a full-fledged debate on a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops

Now, there is no truth whatsoever to the continued assertions that the GOP blocked debate, but truth matters little to Democrats hell-bent on winning their fight to lose this war if that's what it's going to take to defeat this President.

Truth, while obviously being in the ear of the beholder, can be fabricated readily enough given sufficient repetition. Keep saying it, and eventually it can be made real-just like Pinocchio. This continues to be the strategy of outlets such as the New York Times, National Public Radio, (for whom taxpayers pay), and Center for Media and Democracy, to name a few.

Pelosi (America's Mother-In-Law™), for her part, will get this defeat done at all costs. Her strategy will be to use the House to keep waging the Democrats' campaign, suggesting the introduction of NEW measures to replace the ones already killed in the Senate. Her plan, according to "her people"?

The precise nature of the measure remains to be determined, the officials said, although Brendan Daly, a spokeswoman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said, it will be "our opposition to the surge" in troops.

My translation? "We have no clue how to get around this cumbersome Democratic process in order to make the President look bad, but by God, we'll think of SOMETHING."

The defeat the Democrats are after, to be fair, is not so much on the battleground in Iraq. In a flash of generosity, I will grant that they don't want our Soldiers killed, and that they too pray for their safety as much as anyone else. In fact, I would venture that SOME would actually think it just fine were Iraq to become stable and secure, but only AFTER they defeat the President and ultimately the Republicans who have stood behind him thus far in the war on terrorism.

Consider war expert, and admitted war criminal John Kerry (himself a simultaneous war HERO) as he suggests this:

"The only people who believe there is a workable military solution for the conflict in Iraq is the Bush administration," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in announcing legislation that would require Bush to "complete the redeployment" of American troops within a year.

Wasn't he applying for the job of Command and Control of our Military machine?

No worries, the latest probable applicant for that job has a similar approach to commanding a Military:

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democratic presidential hopeful, joined two other lawmakers in proposing a measure to block Bush from implementing his planned troop increase, and to begin a withdrawal by May 1.

Rest easy, war-weary souls, your likely next Commander in Chief will put all this to rest once and for all:

"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will"

REGARDLESS of her assertion just 2 weeks earlier that she was:

not for imposing a certain withdrawal date

And whichever version of Hillary we elect, she and her minions will continue unabated working to defeat the President and the Republicans, because their victory can only come on the backs of someone else's defeat; certainly it will not be in response to their having possession of a superior agenda and a greater ability to govern.