February 16, 2007
They got change.
Bush canned Rumsfeld. He looked at the Bi-partisan Iraq Study Group resommendations. The he changed the strategy. New Tactics. New Rules of Enagement. 21,500 reinforcements.
The problem is that wasn't the change the left wanted. In typical liberal nuanced fashion when they said "change," wqhat they really meant was surrender. The only thing they meant by change was to pack-up turn tail and run. Bush did change the other way around.
So the Democrat controlled House of Representatives took bold action. They stood up and declared, in an entirely non-binding have no effect on anything kind of way, that they don't like it one little bit. They have announced to the world, our enemies included, that the U.S. House of Representatives opposes any action by the Commander and Chief with the objective of actually winning the war. And they bravely did so in a way that has no force of law.
They could not have done this however without the expectation that it would not send a message to our troops in combat and to the enemies they face. To our troops it says we expect and want you to fail and we do not support you or your efforts. To our enemies it says that we are divided and that we lack the will to achieve victory. They had to know this. And they voted for it. This has to be what they wanted to say.
This is the House for the next two years. I wonder how much worse it's going to get.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 01:11 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Posted by: Dana at February 16, 2007 09:25 PM (jIOkE)
Well, it can't get much worse than the disgraceful shenanigans of the corrupt, opportunistic and altogether indecent Republican slimeballs -- many now flushed from office -- that dominated Congress for the previous 12 years.
I'd assume Mark Foley, Randy Cunningham and Tom DeLay -- among many others -- would agree.
Posted by: Nigel Tufnel at February 17, 2007 09:58 PM (/Q1DX)
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at February 18, 2007 01:54 AM (Z3kjO)
But given that the powers of war, which are constitutionally shared by Congress, have been pulled away and twisted out of recognition by this presidential administration -- for a war the administration started under very questionable pretenses, executed absolutely horribly, has no exit strategy for, has cost monumentally more than we can afford, has put American citizens at greater peril worldwide (much the less our legacy, future and international standing as a democratic country), and that the majority of Americans no longer support -- what other recourse does Congress have to rein in the president's zeal, his will to overstep his power, his belief that, to use his words, "Congress can act by giving me authority"?
I ask this question not because cuts to military funding are the best avenue, but because perhaps a better solution to draw this war to a close -- which most Americans seem to want -- should be found.
Congress' action here is merely checks and balances restoring themselves, which is the lifeblood of democracy. Of course, Mr. Bush isn't particularly fond of such nuisances as democratic procedure, as evidenced by this quote:
http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/dictator/bush-dictator.mp3
(stated by Mr. Bush on Capitol Hill, Dec. 19, 2000)
Posted by: Nigel Tufnel at February 18, 2007 08:34 PM (/Q1DX)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.









