November 20, 2007

Dopey Philly Inquirer Letter of the Week

Monique Frugier of Ardmore thinks President Bush and Dick Cheney ought to be impeached. Why?

We all have blood on our hands if we do not defend and protect our Constitution, which clearly reads in Article I, Section 8, that only Congress has the power to declare war. Where is the outrage for Bush's war?

While I certainly agree that we'd all be better off if Congress demanded that it retake this very power as prescribed by the Constitution, let's examine that 2002 Iraq authorization vote: The House of Representatives passed H.J. Res. 114 (Public Law 107243) on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133 with 81 Democrats agreeing to the resolution. The Senate, the following day, passed the resolution 77-23 with a majority of Democrats (29) agreeing to same.

With the quantity of Democrats agreeing with the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq, that hardly makes it "Bush's war," Ms. Frugier. If the opposition party was truly against "Bush's war," they could have easily stopped it, especially in the Senate. Not to mention, especially, over this past year when the Dems took control of both the House and Senate. They could have ended the war outright by pulling the plug on funding. Why haven't they?

Posted by Hube at November 20, 2007 03:30 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

This argument is specious. The Constitution does not stipulate the language of a declaration of war. It does stipulate the language of the oath for the president and other officials. The authorization for the use of force is a declaration of war and no amount of semantic parsing changes the clear intent of Congress. No matter how Ms. Clinton and others try to wiggle. "If I had known then what I know now..." Come on. The last time I got away with that one I was maybe five years old.

Posted by: Roy Lofquist at November 20, 2007 09:46 PM

Perhaps, but if your daughter was gang raped, and you sneaked off and killed the guys, how would you react if she came up to you and later said, remember that rape story, I was just joking....

That, essentially is what happened with Iraq. Lies were told in order to drive up the price of oil.....One can say otherwise, but that only proves one does not fully understand the "inside" story of what took place.

Posted by: kavips at November 21, 2007 09:27 AM

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party doesn't represent the American people to our satisfaction, not yet anyway. There were two problems in late 2002, politicians like John Kerry were calculating that the war would go well and they'd better get on the winning side, pronto. That same waffling, indecisive aspect came up up in his statement "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.
The second problem is that President Bill Clinton came up with a strategy called "triangulation" which worked sorta well, but is irrelevant to Senators, Representatives and anyone else not running for President. And it worked okay for him, but people noted at the time that "he had no coattails," meaning no one could pronounce themselves a loyal follower of Clintonism and thereby win an election.
There are too many Democrats who never really understood the weaknesses of Clintonism, too many living in the past, too many who seek to "triangulate" and too many who simply want to avoid being seen with the DFH folks who were right about the war from the start for Democrats to successfully bring an end to the war.
The 2006 Congress is better than the 2004 Congress and for anti-war folks like Ms Frugier to keep up the pressure means that we may end up with a still better and more improved Congress next year.

Posted by: Rich at November 24, 2007 02:11 PM