Legislating a Terrorist Victory in Iraq
By Frank Salvato (03/30/07)
If anyone was under the impression that congressional Democrats actually considered their actions, with regard to the "troop withdrawal bills," beyond achieving victory over the Bush Administration, they would be playing the part of the uninformed, Kool-Aid drinking fool. While Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of their anti-war, pro-genocide, hate-Bush contingent revel in the fact that they have succeeded in passing a bill that opposes the president, al Qaeda operatives in Iraq are preparing to set their alarm clocks for "half-past redeployment" so the slaughter of those who braved Iraq's polling places can begin.
Upon a logical, thoughtful examination, all congressional Democrats really achieved was a guaranteed veto at the hand of the president, a veto that in all likelihood, in light of the slim margin by which the bills’ passed, will be sustained. President Bush plainly promised to veto any bill that included a timetable or withdrawal measure and he made it perfectly clear to even the most feeble-minded in Congress that would be the case. So their actions – the bloviating, the grandstanding and the headline grabbing, in reality, were a pre-determined waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
Even more disconcerting is the fact that congressional Democrats, cheered on by the mind-numbing inanity of the anti-war Left, used tactics such as bribing Blue Dog Democrats with taxpayer funded pork projects placed in an emergency supplemental bill simply to achieve a political victory over the president. Let me say that again – they bribed many who wouldn’t have normally voted for defeatist policies with taxpayer dollars for pet pork projects; remember that the next time anyone tries to say that moderate Democrats are different from Progressive-Left Democrats.
But perhaps the most infuriating issue associated with this most ignorant of political stunts is the fact that a Republican had the audacity to believe he could pretend he was acting in the best interest of the troops by siding with congressional Democrats when all he was really doing was positioning with moderates and opinion polls for a potential run at the White House.
If there is a hell for insincere, opportunistic, two-faced politicians Chuck Hagel will arrive there shortly after he leaves his earthly bonds.
Being a Vietnam veteran, he is either showing a complete disregard for history, exposing the depths to which he will bow to the political altar for power or displaying his ignorance when it comes to having an iota of vision for what the Iraqi people will face in the event of a pre-mature withdrawal of US troops from the Iraqi theater. Of course, there is the possibility that Hagel missed the Cambodian and Vietnamese genocide that took place after the premature withdrawal of American troops from Southeast Asia, a withdrawal forced at the hands of the same striking ignorance employed by today’s 1960s anti-war throwbacks. Perhaps he was too busy perfecting his “deployment” of the perfect martini at his post-service bartending job or making sure that he could “hit the post” at his college radio gig, one can never really be positive about the origins of ignorance.
One thing is for sure with regard to Hagel, he should be officially drummed out of the Republican Party. Party Chairman Mel Martinez should convene an emergency meeting of the appropriate party authorities necessary to officially remove any party affiliation associated with Hagel’s name. Further, the true Republicans of Nebraska – people who are sick and tired of having a RINO and a political opportunist for a Senator – should seriously look into the process of how to recall a US Senator from Washington. They removed Governor Gray Davis from office in California because he was inept, the good people of Nebraska can do it for Hagel’s failure to accurately represent his constituency.
Those who argue that we can’t afford to lose Hagel’s vote in such a closely divided Senate must realize that Hagel hasn’t been a faithful Republican for quite awhile. He has spit on Reagan’s Rule of not bad-mouthing other Republicans in public – as have others – and has gone as far as to say, in his best Pelosi-Reid-Murtha voice:
"He's not accountable any more, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes…''
Constitutionally, Congress has a singular recourse with regard to approving or disapproving of the military efforts underway in the war against radical Islamofascist aggression currently playing out on the battlefield that is Iraq. They can either fund the war or not. Constitutionally, they have no authority to command our soldiers on the field of battle and their insistence to the contrary: that they do have the authority to impose timetables or stipulations is a clear usurpation of the Executive Branch’s authority and a clear violation of the separation of powers.
President Bush would do well to explore utilizing a presidential signing statement to accept the funding for the troops as mandated by the authority of the legislation’s passage while challenging congressional authority regarding the oversight of battlefield military operations as unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, we mere citizens should get off our behinds and start looking into how we can legally demand that our elected officials effect the will of their constituencies once they have made all the promises and successfully pandered for our votes. Just because the votes have been tallied doesn’t mean that those elected aren’t obligated to be true to their constituency. Pursuing their legal removal from office is one way of sending the message that we – the voters, the taxpayers, their bosses – are pretty angry at the games being played at the hand of political opportunism.
Did you hear that Senator Durbin?
Frank Salvato
Related Reading:
US House votes for Iraq deadline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6486669.stm
Bush Repeats Veto Threat on Spending Bill That Includes Iraq Withdrawal Timetable
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261664,00.html
Senate Ignores Veto Threat, Passes Iraq War Spending Bill
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262320,00.html
Chuck Hagel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel
Senator: Bush risks impeachment over war
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21446769-38198,00.html
Signing Statement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_signing_statement
Separation of powers under the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
(Printer friendly version) Email: Frank Salvato
