Well, there, he
did it. President Bush told us last night that he'll be sending another 20,000+ troops to Iraq, presumably to "win" (whatever that means). I guess he can order anything he wants (he is Commander in Chief, you know, and the "war president"). However, it will be interesting to see how Congress, of which the Democrats now have a slight majority, reacts.
According to the Boston Herald,
Ted Kennedy is "pushing legislation that would prevent Bush from committing more troops without approval from Congress, a proposal some say amounts to an unconstitutional infringement on the president’s power as commander in chief."
While nobody thinks this proposal will fly, it is apparent, and has been for a while, that most Democrats and many Republicans are against such a buildup.
Now, it has been suggested that Congress could refute Bush's plan by not funding the escalation. However, this presents a terrible "worst-case scenario" for Democrats and Republicans who run counter to Bush's direction: If they vote NOT to fund the war build-up, they'll undoubtedly be portrayed as unpatriotic come election time. If they vote for funding the buildup, then they'll run counter to the
majority of Americans who simply want us to "cut and run."
This is clearly a case where representative government would do the right thing. However, we don't really have such a government. Rather, we have a government of elected officials who "know better than us."
They're smarter than us so they'll do the right thing. Right?
Sure, their "sheeple" mentality is what got us into this war.
powered by performancing firefox
