posted on January 19, 2007 10:30
The Democratic leaders in Congress – such as Speaker Pelosi – made it clear during the election they believe President Bush is sacrificing the lives of young men in Iraq for no good purpose.
So it comes as a shock when President Bush asserted he can send more troops to Iraq without Congress’ approval, by and large, with the exception of Ted Kennedy, not a Democrat leader took him to task.
Granted, enough loopholes have been punched in the Constitution during our ‘non-wars’ in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (the first time) that the President may be right. But it’s hard to believe that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind, since they wrote into the Constitution that a President cannot declare war without a vote of Congress.
So why are the Democratic leaders – believing as they do that young men are dying in vain – refusing to assert Congress’ right to end the war?
One pundit says they have decided “to give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself by increasing troop strength in Iraq.” But look at the moral issue that raises from the Democratic leaders’ perspective. They are allowing the bloodshed to continue in a war that they have said – repeatedly – serves no purpose.
For that matter, is it really wise for the President to, unilaterally, continue the war? Shouldn’t he make Congress decide now to continue the war by asking for a real vote – rather than the meaningless non-binding resolution Democrats propose? What does he gain by waiting? The worst that can happen, if he loses, is he will learn now he does not have the support in Congress to go on – rather than learning it in six months. The best that can happen is a majority in Congress will go on record that there is a purpose to the war.
To comment, send us an email to email@example.com.