The Rats are Abandoning the Ship

Four Senators – Levin (D-MI), Hagel (R-NE), Snowe (R-ME), and Biden (D-DE) – have introduced a non-binding resolution telling Bush they oppose the war. Sadly, they seem to be under the impression Bush, a lame duck President who’s more radioactive than the Chernobyl fauna, gives a damn about non-binding resolutions.

At the same time, House liberals are introducing binding resolutions for withdrawal. Even if they pass, there’s a fifty/fifty chance Bush will abide by them, but 50% is still better than nothing.

And on the other side of the Capitol, antiwar liberal Democrats in the House, led by Californians, unveiled a more sweeping plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq over the next six months.

The White House responded to the flurry of activity by asserting that the resolutions would have no impact on its policy.

“The president has obligations as a commander in chief,” said presidential spokesman Tony Snow. “And he will go ahead and execute them.”

Rep. Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, along with Reps. Maxine Waters of Los Angeles and Barbara Lee of Oakland, was one of the Californians who sponsored the sweeping resolution in the House.

“The November elections showed just how fed up the American public is with the president’s failed Iraq policy,” Woolsey said. “It is now up to the Congress to catch up with the will of the American public.”

Bush seems to think that sharing a name with a few English kings makes him one. His defenders cite a few fringe Constitutional scholars, like John Yoo, in defense of their belief that separation of powers is for lesser beings than the President.

That, mind you, is only a recent development. In the 1990s, they sported, “I love my country but fear my government” stickers. Every politician supports the President when it’s popular and then jumps ship when it’s not; three of the four cosponors voted for the war. Every politically-minded person supports a strong executive when his party controls the White House but not Congress, and a strong legislature when it’s the other way around.

5 Responses to The Rats are Abandoning the Ship

  1. I especially love the argument put forward by the unitary executive crowd that Article 2 somehow gives the president carte-blanch in a time of war to override any aspect of the Constitution he wants. I usually just say this: read article 2, it’s not long. It basically says the president is commander in chief of the army and in charge of the committees created by the legislature. It doesn’t say “The president can do whatever the fuck he wants provided he’s fighting some contrived on something or other.”

  2. That should be”contrived war on something or other” above, my bad.

    By the way, speaking as a native of Portland, I can say I’m once again disappointed by the sheer mediocrity of my senator Olympia Snowe. Moderate my ass, the only she moderates is her effectiveness. This is why I gladly voted for Jean Hay Bright despite her having no chance in winning.

  3. SLC says:

    Re DiPietro

    Unfortunately, there is precedence for Presidents taking unconstitutional actions during wartime. One only as to remember President Lincoln banishing Senator Vallandigham from the Northern states during the Civil War.

  4. Bushbaptist says:

    ~Unfortunately, there is precedence for Presidents taking unconstitutional actions during wartime. One only as to remember President Lincoln banishing Senator Vallandigham from the Northern states during the Civil War.~

    The only problem with that is that the US hasn’t been at War since 1945. And you’re not at war now. You can not have a “War on Terror” because terror is not a sovreign state. It’s pure Bushit rhetoric.
    B/C/R (Bush, Cheney and Rove) bunch claim it to be so as then they can grab the powers.
    Nothing on this planet happens without a cause and everything has a cause and an effect. So what you do now can come back and bite you on the arse in 20 yrs time.

  5. The only problem with that is that the US hasn’t been at War since 1945. And you’re not at war now. You can not have a “War on Terror” because terror is not a sovreign state. It’s pure Bushit rhetoric.

    So you don’t understand the efficacy of a policy with a nebulous target and completely amorphous objectives that is defined by nothing more than an arbitrary catchphrase?!! You obviously have not witnessed the amazing successes of our War on Drugs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: