The answer is: “Because…it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do.”
February 17th, 2007 | by Craig R. Harmon |but what’s the question? This:
“So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional?”
Some more choice bits:
Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops.
…
Mr. Murtha’s cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq.
Bill O’Reilly? No. The Editorial staff of the Washington Post.
15 Responses to “The answer is: “Because…it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do.””
By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
No, the answer is that the president has to run this war honestly and not with an endless back-door draft, abusing our National Guards and vets who have already done their duty.
I know the cons hate the soldiers and want to see them all dead, maimed or insane, but it would not be politically smart to admit that. (Isn’t that kinda like what you’re saying about Murtha, right now?)
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
I’m not saying anything, Jersey. I’m not on the editorial board of the Washington Post.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
However, I would say that what the President has to do is run this war to win it. The problem is, Congress isn’t granted Commander in Chief or executive powers, which is why Congress can’t command the commanders how and when to mobilize troops: because the Constitution doesn’t give them that power.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Ah, but congress does have the legal authority in peacetime to set the rules for terms of service and such. Remember, congress did not declare war.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Um, does this look like peacetime to you, Jersey?
Declared war or not, that ain’t Parcheesi they’re playing over there. Don’t be silly. The Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. If you’re calling this peacetime, your more out of touch than Murtha. Not even he would stoop to calling this peacetime. If it were peacetime there’d be no need to strategically
turn tail and runredeploy from Iraq.By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
We are not at war.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Per Congress, we are, Jersey.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
The troops are on active duty under the Commander in Chief’s control in harms way. Congress has no Executive powers.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
These discussions are getting under my skin and I’m disengaging lest I cause the discussion to devolve any further. I’ve made my point.
Carry one, folks. I’m taking a break.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, read the constitution.
Craig, congress passed the authorization, congress can repeal it. We are not, constitutionally, at war. The “president” can go fuck himself.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
The troops are constitutionally under the command of the Commander in Chief by reason of the AUMF. Yes, Congress can undo the AUMF and, just as they had to do with the AUMF, they have to send it to the President to either sign, veto, or let slide into law. Now, I’ll let you guess what the President would do with any Congressional act that would rescind the AUMF: sign it, veto it, or let it slide, unsigned into law.
Translation: Congress can go fuck itself.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply
If the war keeps going the way it’s going, the president won’t be able to veto it.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply
Well, no. If the war keeps going the way it is, Congress may be able to put together enough votes to override a presidential veto but Bush isn’t up for reelection. Nothing will be able to make it so he won’t be able to veto it.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply
I don’t know if Americans can stand another 21 months of this.
JMJ