It's that inevitable exercise of arbitrary judgment of generals in the field which makes it imperative that our civilian overseers of the military directly exercise their authority to define the mission of our nation's defenders. Far more pernicious than Bush's concern about Congress "substituting their judgment" for that of the generals, is the prospect of our military abroad operating under wide discretion to pick and choose who our nation is warring against; substituting their military judgment for that of the "policymakers" in Washington. Anyone who claims they don't know by now that Congress is determined to end the occupation, is either in extreme isolation or lying.
In Washington, Bush has assumed the posture that Congress should legislate according to his whim and will, despite the loss of his enabling republican majority. It's an amazing display as Bush attempts to dictate according to legislation which hasn't even been reconciled and reached his desk. He's impatient to exercise his first veto and turn his back on the legislative majority rebuke. He's so accustomed to having his way with impunity that he's taken to attacking the Democratic opposition's decision to send him a bill contrary to his imperious dictates.
"In both the House and Senate," Bush complained in his radio address, "Democratic majorities have passed bills that would impose restrictions on our military commanders, set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq, and fund domestic spending that has nothing to do with the war. The Democrats who passed these bills know that I will veto either version if it reaches my desk, and they know my veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation," he said.
Amazing, isn't it, how Congress can act in complete disregard of Bush's threat to obstruct their will? Their defiance actually mirrors Bush's own obstinacy, since the November election, to their clear intent to follow through on the will of Americans as expressed in the votes which allowed them to ascend to office.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said out loud at the end of January in answering reporters questions, what was obvious to everyone who has watched Bush subvert the will of Congress with 'signing statements' declaring that his Executive branch will exercise whatever authority they imagine without regard to the letter or intent of the laws that he approves with his signature - the very laws he's sworn to defend and uphold. Rep. Pelosi called Bush out on his rush to escalate the occupation in the face of the clear calls for an exit plan, and the clear intent of the new majority to implement that exit.
"The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources," Speaker Pelosi said. "That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way."
I guess it's too much expect this duplicitous White House to acknowledge their own hypocrisy, but they couldn't have forgotten that 6 days before the deployment, National Security Adviser Hadley let the cat out of the bag on MTP about the rush to deploy before Congress could act.
RUSSERT: "If Congress decides to cut off funds for the new troops being deployed to Iraq, will the president accept that decision by Congress and abide by it?"
HADLEY: "Tim, we're not there yet. We have funds in the '07 appropriations bill to deploy these troops. I think once they get in harm's way, Congress' tradition is to support those troops . . ."
Having admitted that he put off his 'critical review' of his Iraq policy until after November of last year because he didn't want the elections to 'interfere' -- and again for 7 weeks after the elections so he could go on a 'listening tour' -- Bush had no excuse for hurrying troops into Iraq to implement his already unpopular 'plan'. The rush of troops into Iraq ahead of congressional action was the same type of naked politics Bush has practiced all throughout his presidency with the help of his presumptive majority of republican rubber-stamps.
Bush is complaining that "on the front lines," the military is now forced to make cuts in other areas to "cover the shortfall." But, it is Bush who is responsible for packing troops into Iraq ahead of the predictable congressional action calling for their withdrawal. Any "shortfall" they might be suffering is a direct result of Bush's insistence on putting them in harms way to fight and die in a conflict which is widely unsupported, both in the country and in Congress.
Bush has decided to subvert Congress' intent by stringing out our military forces to the degree that they suffer shortages affecting their safety, security, and well-being. It's not the money which has been denied Bush; it's a denial of permission for the continuation of his open-ended occupation. Bush and his generals are looking for ways around receiving and accepting the judgment of Congress that they begin to end it all and bring our soldiers home. They've decided that packing more troops, unprepared, in between the warring faction of Iraq as they await that verdict from our legislators will help them with their political argument. They're gambling that those opposed to the Iraq occupation will flinch when presented with the plights of soldiers suffering the consequences of Bush's cynical deployment.
This administration's more than willing to play chicken with our troops in Iraq, until they get their way to continue with their militarism, by wedging our soldiers in the middle of the civil war and complaining that the money provided by Congress for their well-being is too tainted with restrictions on their ability to continue their military aggression indefinitely.
In Washington, Bush has assumed the posture that Congress should legislate according to his whim and will, despite the loss of his enabling republican majority. It's an amazing display as Bush attempts to dictate according to legislation which hasn't even been reconciled and reached his desk. He's impatient to exercise his first veto and turn his back on the legislative majority rebuke. He's so accustomed to having his way with impunity that he's taken to attacking the Democratic opposition's decision to send him a bill contrary to his imperious dictates.
"In both the House and Senate," Bush complained in his radio address, "Democratic majorities have passed bills that would impose restrictions on our military commanders, set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq, and fund domestic spending that has nothing to do with the war. The Democrats who passed these bills know that I will veto either version if it reaches my desk, and they know my veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation," he said.
Amazing, isn't it, how Congress can act in complete disregard of Bush's threat to obstruct their will? Their defiance actually mirrors Bush's own obstinacy, since the November election, to their clear intent to follow through on the will of Americans as expressed in the votes which allowed them to ascend to office.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said out loud at the end of January in answering reporters questions, what was obvious to everyone who has watched Bush subvert the will of Congress with 'signing statements' declaring that his Executive branch will exercise whatever authority they imagine without regard to the letter or intent of the laws that he approves with his signature - the very laws he's sworn to defend and uphold. Rep. Pelosi called Bush out on his rush to escalate the occupation in the face of the clear calls for an exit plan, and the clear intent of the new majority to implement that exit.
"The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources," Speaker Pelosi said. "That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way."
I guess it's too much expect this duplicitous White House to acknowledge their own hypocrisy, but they couldn't have forgotten that 6 days before the deployment, National Security Adviser Hadley let the cat out of the bag on MTP about the rush to deploy before Congress could act.
RUSSERT: "If Congress decides to cut off funds for the new troops being deployed to Iraq, will the president accept that decision by Congress and abide by it?"
HADLEY: "Tim, we're not there yet. We have funds in the '07 appropriations bill to deploy these troops. I think once they get in harm's way, Congress' tradition is to support those troops . . ."
Having admitted that he put off his 'critical review' of his Iraq policy until after November of last year because he didn't want the elections to 'interfere' -- and again for 7 weeks after the elections so he could go on a 'listening tour' -- Bush had no excuse for hurrying troops into Iraq to implement his already unpopular 'plan'. The rush of troops into Iraq ahead of congressional action was the same type of naked politics Bush has practiced all throughout his presidency with the help of his presumptive majority of republican rubber-stamps.
Bush is complaining that "on the front lines," the military is now forced to make cuts in other areas to "cover the shortfall." But, it is Bush who is responsible for packing troops into Iraq ahead of the predictable congressional action calling for their withdrawal. Any "shortfall" they might be suffering is a direct result of Bush's insistence on putting them in harms way to fight and die in a conflict which is widely unsupported, both in the country and in Congress.
Bush has decided to subvert Congress' intent by stringing out our military forces to the degree that they suffer shortages affecting their safety, security, and well-being. It's not the money which has been denied Bush; it's a denial of permission for the continuation of his open-ended occupation. Bush and his generals are looking for ways around receiving and accepting the judgment of Congress that they begin to end it all and bring our soldiers home. They've decided that packing more troops, unprepared, in between the warring faction of Iraq as they await that verdict from our legislators will help them with their political argument. They're gambling that those opposed to the Iraq occupation will flinch when presented with the plights of soldiers suffering the consequences of Bush's cynical deployment.
This administration's more than willing to play chicken with our troops in Iraq, until they get their way to continue with their militarism, by wedging our soldiers in the middle of the civil war and complaining that the money provided by Congress for their well-being is too tainted with restrictions on their ability to continue their military aggression indefinitely.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
