Mike Dunford was a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where he studied evolution. Life as an army spouse has since moved him on to Pensacola, where he's currently trying to figure out what to do next. While he's doing that, he writes stuff here, although not usually in the third person. He's also a contributer to 
Update - I've written a second post on this topic in response to the President's speech at Fort Irwin earlier today.
Mr. President, meet the Constitution. Constitution, I'd like to introduce you to President George W. Bush. It's been a long six years since Mr. Bush took office, and it's high time the two of you got to know each other - especially with that whole oathy-type thing. It's probably going to be easier to do all that "preserve, protect, and defend" thing if you have some sort of vague sense of what it is you are defending.
This overdue introduction is particularly necessary today because the president, in his Rose Garden press conference, demonstrated a particularly egregious failure to comprehend one of the most basic principles of our system of government.
In his opening statement, the President said this:
Instead of passing clean bills that fund our troops on the front lines, the House and Senate have spent this time debating bills that undercut the troops, by substituting the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground, setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, and spending billions of dollars on pork barrel projects completely unrelated to the war.
The problem with that statement is that we live, at the moment, in a republic. We do not live in a military dictatorship. That is why, in the United States, the military is supposed to be subordinate to the civilian leadership. The founders also wanted to make sure that the powers of the government were diluted - having experienced first hand all of the fun of monarchy, they wanted to make sure that they stayed way the hell away from that.
This is why, at least in theory, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military but Congress is the branch of government that has the power to tell the President where, when, and why the military should be used. The President is Commander-in-Chief, but Congress declares and pays for wars. Congress gets to tell the president when and where the military that he commands should fight, and the President gets to take it from there.
Unfortunately, this President does not seem to be willing to acknowledge that. He is, after all, the "decider," and the rest of us - and especially Congress - need to understand and acknowledge that, and do what he wants. His press conference today makes it clear that he is not willing to accept the will of either Congress or the American people in this regard:
Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq. If Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back. I'll veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without delay.
That's right. Those damn Democrats better get this politicking out of their system and get back to the important "business" of giving Bush what he wants. After all, that's what they're there for, right?
So what happens if they don't? Apparently, the President is going to keep fighting as best as he can without the money:
If Congress fails to act in the next few weeks, it will have significant consequences for our men and women in the Armed Forces. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, recently stated during his testimony before a House subcommittee, if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair, and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and reserve forces. These cuts would be necessary because the money will have to be shifted to support the troops on the front lines.
The Army also would be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army would be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops depend on is repaired. They will also have to consider delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of these forces to deploy overseas. If this happens, some of the forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended because other units are not ready to take their places.
If Congress does not act, the Army may also have to delay the formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy. If these new teams are unavailable, we would have to ask other units to extend into the theater.
In a letter to Congress, Army Chief of Staff General Pete Schoomaker put it this way: "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."
It's important to remember just how "a bill I can sign" is being defined here - that would be a funding bill that gives the President the money that he is asking for without any of those pesky strings. After all, just who do those Congresscritters think they are, anyway? It's like they think that they have the right to tell him what he should and should not do with the military. Why, it's almost enough to make you think that they've been sneaking out and reading the Constitution behind his back or something.
Just in case those statements weren't enough to clearly demonstrate just how far the President is willing to go in this regard, he made things more explicit:
In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership -- Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds. The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.
At this moment, my wife is in the combat zone. She has a new assignment that will probably bring her home fairly soon, but the families of the headquarters of her division just found out that they are already going to be waiting longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. My brother-in-law was supposed to have returned from Afghanistan a couple of months back, and he hasn't yet. My brother is getting ready to head back into the combat zone again. Since July of 2004, the three of them have logged over 40 months in the combat zone. Speaking as one of the American people, I find that unacceptable.
Members of Congress say they support the troops. Now they need to show that support in deed, as well as in word. Members of Congress are entitled to their views and should express them. Yet debating these differences should not come at the expense of funding our troops.
A translation for those of you who aren't familiar with the Imperial dialect of Bushese: "They're entitled to have their views and express their views. They're just not entitled to act on them."
Congress's most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation. They're now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones.
The President is, it would appear, fully prepared to hold the American military hostage until he gets his way. He is willing to do this because he thinks that he can convince the public that he's not the guy holding the gun to the troops head. But he will be.
Congress, under the Constitution, is the branch of government that has the power to raise an army. Congress, under the Constitution, is the branch of government that has the power to declare war. Congress, under the Constitution, is the branch of government that has the power to decide how money should be spent. The President, under the Constitution, has none of those powers.
If Congress sends him a military funding bill that the President does not believe he can live with, he can veto the bill. If Congress cannot override the veto, the funding bill does not become law. Congress is not, however, then obliged to send him another funding bill that doesn't have the things he found objectionable. Congress can send him the same damn bill again, with the same strings attached, and that is exactly what they should do if that happens.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between what the President is trying to pull here and what goes on when the cops are staring down someone who has a gun to a hostage's head is the scale. The President is standing there, and his message comes down to this: "OK, Congress. Give me the money, no strings attached, or the troops get it." It's extortion by threat on a massive scale, and the military are the ones being threatened.
I do not want my loved ones or my friends to get hurt, but Congress has got to stand up to the President. We do not have kings in this country. We do not let one person - whether he thinks he is the "decider" or not - make all of the decisions. If Congress caves in to him (as they probably will), he's just going to do it again and again.
It's time for Congress to show courage and leadership. It's time for them to remind the President that he's not the "decider."
Comments
You are my new hero!
Posted by: Andrew Pogue | April 4, 2007 5:02 AM
Very well put. Bush is a failed president and will be recorded in history as the worst administration to this point.
Posted by: Tom Carson | April 4, 2007 5:05 AM
Thank you, Mr. Zoology.
Posted by: tkw | April 4, 2007 5:07 AM
Excellent post Mike. As someone who has a number of family members in this fight you know it isn't just a matter of some simplistic slogans like "support the troops". Bush is killing time because he wants the Iraqi congress to approve the Profit Sharing Agreements. It means giving British and American oil conglomerates a 75% share of the Iraqi oil. I'm sure the people of Iraq must be thrilled to have their country destroyed and then have to turn over one of the few resources they have to the decimators. This war was about oil pure and simple. Bush doesn't care about the troops or he wouldn't be holding them hostage to his demands. He wants what he wants and screw everyone and everything. After all, he revealed his true colors when he stated that the Constitution was "just a goddamn piece of paper". Oh really Mr. Bush? Never mind that it is the very foundation of this nation and everything it stands for. He's not a Commander nor a president. He's a spoiled frat boy who only has war profiteering in his blood. You'll sure as hell never see any members of his family or friends shed any of their blood for this country. That's your job. I wish to God Congress would bring Articles of Impeachment against him and his dark cohort Cheney. They deserve it and I'm afraid our nation won't survive another two years of these treasonous S.O.B's.
Posted by: Theda | April 4, 2007 5:09 AM
I would strongly suggest that you need to review the constitution and a basic class on American government. You have an obvious lack of knowledge of either. At least base your arguments on facts instead of what you wish it to be. Typical left wing rantings, lots of innuendo and not too many facts.
Posted by: Robert Landess | April 4, 2007 5:11 AM
this little weasle president is the very tyrant that mimics the reason we rebelled against king george .now we have a treacherous tyrant who thinks he gangis khan,or adolph hitler.i think the military personnel from privates to majors should refuse to serve in iraq. they are working for exxon,and halliburton,just like nazi germany was serving the elite families ,there. i think this would be exactly what george washington would want,from our troops.
Posted by: harmon close | April 4, 2007 5:12 AM
Yes, it is HIGH time we bring the war on terror where it needs to be...in the Halls of Congress and on the streets of both liberal coasts.
If the President asks for an emergency war funding bill why is it necessary for the Democrats to stuff it with pork. I thought when they took over from the Repubs they said it was all going to be different?
As for the execution of the war in Iraq, it should not be micro-managed by Congress (nor the President). Congress fully approved of the general selected to run the war just a few months ago - they should give him the tools to do the job he was sent to do. All the "surge" troops have not been fully deployed and yet already there have been improvements.
It would appear that the Democrat controlled Congress is more than prepared to hold the military hostage while it plays out these games. It was nice of them to take a vacation without approving this bill nor even selecting the House and Senate members to conference on the differences in the bill.
Other than that I enjoyed your article.
Posted by: BobN | April 4, 2007 5:13 AM
An emotional report filled with a loose interpretation of the constitution and a biased opinion.
Posted by: tom | April 4, 2007 5:16 AM
For Mike Dunford:
As one who also studies Planetary Evolution, may I make a personal observation? These politically "up-setting" times are all part of the same equation: Planetary Evolution; and there is really nothing that one human being can say or do, other than to let Mother Nature take her course; as you know, she will anyway.
With that 1.2 mile bollide due to hit in the Pacific theater in April 2012, your current concerns over the fourth Muslim Poppy War, may not be worth the effort.
Posted by: JOHN PAUL JONES | April 4, 2007 5:18 AM
Well put however, you're not informing people how DC politics really works. While your analogy of a gun being held to a hostages head is semi applicable, you fail to mention that this is how the machine works. When the chief executive wants to influence public opinion this is how it is done. Do you honestly think President Bush wants our troops to be under funded and under trained? Of course he doesn't. While I do think his administration has set this country back at least a decade in several areas, I refuse to believe he is an "evil" person. I have not agreed with our course of action in Iraq since Sadaam was removed, but I do think Bush thinks he is doing the right thing. That being said, this is how congress forces a president to do the people's bidding. If they cut the funding Bush will not leave our troops over there to suffer he will be forced to bring them home faster. This is just how the political game is played. Just like any game you cannot judge the team based on one play. Bush's speech was just one play in the game of his administration attempting to "stay the course" just like congress cutting the troops funding is their way to bring our fighting men and women home sooner. Congress just happens to be on the side of public opinion, fancy that I guess we really did elect representatives.
Posted by: Brandon G | April 4, 2007 5:21 AM
The Federal government set up so that military power was distributed amount "leaders", and such that the government could be overthrown if it were operating against the interests of the common man? You mean things like the Second Amendment, right? That was put into the founding documents of the nation SPECIFICALLY for that purpose. Yet it's left-wing democrats that are struggling so hard to get it flushed down the toilet. So on the subject of onerous government, bemoaning the fact that the Commander in Chief ultimately makes ALL military decisions should he choose to exercise that right is in direct contradiction with an all-out battle to delete the Second Amendment, or at least cripple it repeatedly and frequently. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein come to mind, as does the remaining Kennedy.
I see no evidence whatsoever that Bush wants to utilize American troops to inflict his will on US soil. Can you show me where there has been any indication that this is in the works from W? Because if not, there's no threat of a military dictatorship.
I could go on and on WRT this rather long-winded blog rant, but I doubt that the author will dignify my points with a rational and open mind and calm debate; the logic and factual holes in each paragraph of this tome are big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. When people step off the ledge of rationality when evaluating factual data, it's a long fall to the bottom, and they ain't likely to be coming back up at any point. This author is nearly to the bottom of the cliff, judging from the spittle flying from the corners of his mouth...
P.S. What in hell does any of this have to do with science?
Posted by: Adam Wade | April 4, 2007 5:24 AM
Well Mike, You have ceratinly convinced me. I think we should not only run a militarty campaign by committeee, but should also extend the wisdom on the hill to all other critical tasks in the country. Heck, I don't see why they don't jump right on in to the operating room and help out the struggling surgeons repairing those damaged heart valves and ruptured intestinal appendages. I am sure that would be better done by committee as well rather than people that spend their life training to do that one thing, just as most of the military commanders in the field have trained for managing the war. And how about that nasty global warming problem. After all, I am certain most of the lawyers in congress made sure they took plenty of physics and organic chemistry in college so that they can understand the nuances of thermal gradient flow dynamics and polymerization formation. Congress DID authorize war and DID make a decision to support the effort. Once they did that, it should be left in the hands of the generals until such time the mission is accomplished or the military leaders inform congress that it is not winnable and retreat is the only option. Acting like they know something about what its like on the front or that they somehow are qualified to make those decisions on withdrawing instead of the military men in the field is degrading to all those who are fighting for the dignity of humankind in the middle east. Unlike Andrew, you are not my hero, you just make me feel ill that there are such short sighted people as you that have access to a keyboard.
Posted by: Cecil Lynch | April 4, 2007 5:26 AM
I missed all but the first 2 comments while i was typing my post, but just to clarify. Some of the more conservative posts make excellent points however again, assigning blame is essentially useless in the world of American politics. No matter what party you side with you have to admit each uses the same "dirty" tricks, and they all have the same main goal, RE-ELECTION. Pork barrelling is used by both sides, Conrad Burns a Repuclican Senator from Montana was the master of pork barreling, and he sent money to Montana of all places. Loose interperatations of the workings of our government (notice i said loose not liberal because both sides use this tactic) mislead people, especially uneducated people. Saddly our great Nation is filled with uneducated people who can be taken in by hearing only part of the story. I mean Bush was elected twice point and case. Articles such as this one are dangerous, they are created to mislead not inform, and i could of sworn I clicked on the NEWS link. Good points from the conservative side, but if you want to know how the occupation of Iraq should have went read "The Future of Freedom" by Fareed Zakaria." (might have spelled author's name wrong) I don't agree with this administration's course of action, but lets not flame them for doing what ever administration does.
Posted by: Brandon G | April 4, 2007 5:36 AM
Bush tries to obfuscate the fact that supporting the troops and continuing an illegal occupation are not the same thing.
Posted by: Mike75 | April 4, 2007 5:41 AM
bush could seize the iraqi oil with the military and have the whole operation pay for itself. even with huge dividends.
Posted by: Bastian | April 4, 2007 5:45 AM
"It's important to remember just how "a bill I can sign" is being defined here - that would be a funding bill that gives the President the money that he is asking for without any of those pesky strings. After all, just who do those Congresscritters think they are, anyway? It's like they think that they have the right to tell him what he should and should not do with the military."
Here in the Uk we once had a remarkably similar situation, a little while ago now in the 1600s, when Charles I wanted money for his wars but wouldn't accept the strings attached by parliament (which included in effect a proper recognition of the rights of the people to influence his decisions). He decided to ignore and override the elected members (and even tried to arrest some of them too). Charles, of course,unlike Georgy boy, was not elected, but, in a strange way, he could be regarded as the founding father of parliamentary democracy, provoking as he did a civil war that ended in his execution and the acceptance of strong parliamentary government rather than autocracy. I'm pretty sure Georgy knows nothing about this (or for that matter the dire military history and defeats of states who tried to conquer Mesopotamia and Afghanistan)but it's good you folks keep reminding him and his creatures of the limits of his powers.Where would you be if you didn't? Long live the republic.
Posted by: Richie | April 4, 2007 5:47 AM
Your article was well written. Are you aware that both the Senate and Congress voted to send our troops to Iraq?
Since they did they need to pay the bill and get on with what they instructed the President and our troops to do.
You don't send someone into Iraq and say sorry I changed my mind. They all knew that this would last a long time.
Posted by: Steven Dotson | April 4, 2007 5:56 AM
Excellent! You are so correct in everything you stated.
Posted by: pete | April 4, 2007 5:58 AM
Excellent article. Well written and amazingly true right to the last fullstop. This guy needs to get some new advisors.
Posted by: Ali Haider Aftab | April 4, 2007 5:59 AM
I don't doubt for one second that Mike Dunford is a very nice guy and means well, but he is typical of folks who exist in the biosphere of academia. In their "perfect world" all arguments are won by superior knowledge and/or logic; oh that it were that way in nature. All the logic you can muster will not save you from a mugger with a 79 IQ and a 9mm. Muslim fanatics who's entire life experience is religion based are not likely to be deterred by informing them that there is actually no God and that they should adjust their behavior accordingly. In plain, obvious truth, sometimes you just have to kick somebody's ass. Also, reading an essay by a liberal suggesting we pay more heed to the Constitution is laughable in light of their support for affirmative action and their attacks on the Second Amendment.
Posted by: Joe Kirkup | April 4, 2007 6:07 AM
Tja, but what are you going to do when the guy don't speak english? Perhaps the situation must be explained 2 W in plain spanish... that might help!
cheers
Posted by: Trementatis | April 4, 2007 6:14 AM
Well said. This guy doesn't need new advisors. This is the Bush mentality. It's their way or the highway. The Bush family refers to it as "management style".
Baby bro is far worse, having "ruled" Florida as governor like his personal kingdom. We all must make certain that Jeb never makes it to the White House.
Smashed Frog takes on brother Jeb every Thursday-stop by the Frog for insights to just how these "boys" developed their sense of entitlement...."Born to Rule", Thursday, April 5.
Posted by: Sunny | April 4, 2007 6:21 AM
Can anybody explain to me why no one is looking at the whole story from money=power=>politics point of view. isn't it all being driven by financial interests of power groups? Who is getting good business from war/military spend? Who are major subcontractors? Do they have link(s)to people in congress / white house? we are talking hundreds of billions and it might be that this is politics.
Posted by: Full picture | April 4, 2007 6:21 AM
I am a brasilian university professor, son of an american mother.Now she'd passed away but certainly would be surprised in what a mess these american leaders are making in her beloved country. But probably -she was an optimist - she would say that these things will be overcomed and again we foreigners will see USA as an example to follow and a country to praise.Time will see, I hope ! Paulo Jacobsen
Posted by: paulo jacobsen | April 4, 2007 6:22 AM
Outstanding commentary! President George W. Bush will be remembered as the WORST president this great country ever had. This administration its a culture of deception, lies and deceit. Impeachment is well over due.
Posted by: Miguel Contreras | April 4, 2007 6:23 AM
Comical article considering the lack of understanding for the constitution. The president, under the authority of the constitution can veto anything he darn well pleases,
in turn
His veto can be overturned if
enough votes exist to do so,
this is where the republic and the will of
the people come into play.
if the majority democrats are really
representing the will of the people
in this case
then when the time comes to shoot down
mr. Bush's veto
such will be the case.
Is it this twisted author's logic that the president is abusing the constitution by expressing his constitutional right and obligation ( as it is in this case ) to veto a porly written
bad
bill.
maybe the author should re introduce themselves to the constitution.
Posted by: about that | April 4, 2007 6:25 AM
Good piece. I appreciated it. But you unfortunately fail to recognize that it was Congress's failure in 2003 to stop the war from happening that has given President Bush the freedom to act as he did, send youg Americans to moral defeat and destroy Irak through civil war and brutal ignorance of Irak's realities.. You state Congress declares wars. Yes but it did not really for this Irak war and would be far more credible --Democrats in particular--if they had taken a stand four years ago..
Posted by: elie marcuse | April 4, 2007 6:25 AM
Seems to be a lot less 'loyal Bushies' posting negative comments concerning people bashing their hero these days..........
Posted by: Krayven Sumhead | April 4, 2007 6:26 AM
George Bush showed his lack of respect for the Constitution when he took Dick Cheney as his running mate, despite the fact that both of them were legal residents of Texas and the Constitution expressly prohibits both the President and Vice President being from the same state.
They had Cheney change his residency to Wyooming as if this were some minor formality, not for one instant reflecting on the obvious Constitutional reason for the ban.
They got away with it easily and have been expediently re-interpreting and ignoring the Constitution ever since.
Why would anyone imagine that the Bush administration would change this contemptuous attitude now?
Posted by: DaveT | April 4, 2007 6:26 AM
to the so called author of that artical--- where did you bury your AMERICAN CITAZANSHIP and the debt you and everyone else living here has to this country.. What the president is trying to do is keep the fanatics over there. hell, there are more americans murdered in the USA every day than the number of soldiers we have lost over there.. all the 'bring home the soldiers' crowd is doing is give the radicals a good reason to sit back and wait til we leave, then there would be no one left to stop them from taking over the entire middle east and probably Europe because they have already scared spain out of the picture, the english are in the process of pulling out and the french never had the guts to get involved in the first place and you never know what the germans are going to do.. if they get pushed the wrong way at the wrong time - look out...BUT as for the writer of this artical - IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT AND OUR COURNTRY THERE ARE PLANES AND SHIPS LEAVING EVERY DAY AND IF YOU WILL TAKE A ONE WAY TRIP I'LL BUT YOUR TICKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: glenn | April 4, 2007 6:29 AM
Did you know that for a short time, this was the most popular story on google news. (THANK GOD) If you missed it, I recorded it on my blog:
http://okcitykid.bravejournal.com/entry/26446
Posted by: Roger Harkness | April 4, 2007 6:45 AM
I love the post from Robert Landess, his critic being the argument lacked 'facts', something akin to his own commentary :-) Typical right wing bombast eh Robert :-)
Posted by: Kieran | April 4, 2007 6:52 AM
Incredible! Only moments after a concise post about king George I trying to bully the Congress to do his bidding and numerous "conservative" cranks have already spewed more BS than needed to fertilize all of the farmlands of a medium-sized European nation. Is this representative of the USA as whole?
Posted by: Flaky | April 4, 2007 6:55 AM
to the so called author of that artical--- where did you bury your AMERICAN CITAZANSHIP and the debt you and everyone else living here has to this country.. What the president is trying to do is keep the fanatics over there. hell, there are more americans murdered in the USA every day than the number of soldiers we have lost over there.. all the 'bring home the soldiers' crowd is doing is give the radicals a good reason to sit back and wait til we leave, then there would be no one left to stop them from taking over the entire middle east and probably Europe because they have already scared spain out of the picture, the english are in the process of pulling out and the french never had the guts to get involved in the first place and you never know what the germans are going to do.. if they get pushed the wrong way at the wrong time - look out...BUT as for the writer of this artical - IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT AND OUR COURNTRY THERE ARE PLANES AND SHIPS LEAVING EVERY DAY AND IF YOU WILL TAKE A ONE WAY TRIP I'LL BUT YOUR TICKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----
Oh ye of small mind.
Keep them "over there"? Please.
You know full well that the terrorists only accomplish what they do at all because we present them targets. Putting our troops in the field in the manner we've done is like putting a giant "Shoot me" sign on the back of every single man and woman in uniform.
The terrorists /cannot/ come over here - they do not have the ability. Or should I say *would not* have the ability if we'd just stuck to Afghanistan.
I could go into a long long spiel about how Al Qaeda makes up a minimal proportion of the Iraqi insurgents (most are disaffected Sunnis - former Saddam affiliates, etc...)
I could tell you how we were lead to war on a lie...
I could also just flat tell you that the laws of our country have been grossly violated by this president, such that even if he were somehow 'right', he'd still be wrong.
I could. But you won't listen to reason, you're beyond thinking aren't you? You stopped a long long time ago. You watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh because hearing opposing views and giving them any credence whatsoever might just destroy your entire worldview. Then what would you be? How could you live with yourself if you acknowledged the truth, that you've cheered on the deaths of a half-million people, including three-thousand plus of our soldiers?
How could you stand yourself if you came to the realization that everything you knew was a lie, a lie you willed yourself to believe? How could you live with yourself if you had to say "I made a mistake" at any point, and take resposnibility for your own foolishness and arrogance?
I don't think you can. So you'll never learn. You'll never seek out real information, instead you'll just read what 'sounds right' to you, and then find a lefty blog or a news story you disagree with - just so you can throw a right wing temper tantrum there.
Shameful. Pitiful. Useless.
Posted by: JJohnson | April 4, 2007 6:57 AM
You're correct, the president is guilty on all counts. If he wasn't so gutless, he'd listen to the people. Instead, he'd rather make some cash on the side... He will be remembered as a ruthless president who stopped at nothing to get his own way. Comparable to Ferdinand Marcos. The assasinations have already occurred too.
Posted by: Benjamin | April 4, 2007 7:03 AM
The issue is not constitutional...it is political, as well it should be. The object of the war was to make Bush a war time president. In that it succeeded, If the war ends the Republican party will have nothing left as they failed at everything. The power struggle is strictly between the haves and the have nots and the battle field will be decided in 2008. The faithful will continue to argue that if we don't fight in Baghdad, we will be fighting at home. The assumption that one side in a civil war to control the government of Iraq will continue to fight their sectarian struggle in Chicago may not resonate to well at the polls, but we will see.
Posted by: Sayer | April 4, 2007 7:05 AM
nice read.
Posted by: jason | April 4, 2007 7:10 AM
This Glenn person who seems to have blown something in his brain shows such a love for his country he cannot even be bothered to learn to write the language used by the majority of people in his country with any degree of skill. His standards of literacy are put to shame by millions of people who can write better English than he can and who do not even live in a country that has English as a native language. I am sure that many spaniards could put a more cogent argument that him, and do so in English and without the semantic and spelling mistakes.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 4, 2007 7:29 AM
"The terrorists /cannot/ come over here - they do not have the ability."
This was posted by JJohnson. JJohnson needs to fly into Kennedy then take a cab down to the big hole in the ground where the World Trade Center used to be.
Posted by: Joe Kirkup | April 4, 2007 7:32 AM
"more cogent argument that him"
Matt Penfold complaining about other people's typos.
Posted by: Joe Kirkup | April 4, 2007 7:36 AM
Good and brave article, a bit naive maybe. Why Democrats would stop the war? The Carter Doctrine is consistent with everything happening in Middle-East to date. Ironically, he is a Nobel Peace laureate!
Posted by: Alain Perri | April 4, 2007 7:41 AM
There is a pervasive mindset, illustrated above by Mr Dotsun, that is deeply disturbing. As he points out, Congress and the Senate voted in favour of this war. As he expresses it, this obliges them to pay for it, and that you can't say "sorry, I changed my mind."
This stance is disturbing because it does not take into account that Congress and the Senate voted in favour of war based on available intelligence indicating Iraq was complicit in 9/11, had WMDs, and was on the brink of nuclear capability. This intelligence proved to be utterly wrong. The intelligence being invalid, the decision based on the intelligence is also invalid. The honourable course of action under the circumstances is for Congress and the Senate to say, not "I changed my mind," but "We made a mistake."
That admission demands a change of objectives. Instead of funding troops to perpetuate the mistake, money should be allocated to rebuild Iraq to its prewar condition - or even better condition, by way of apology. This should be accomplished, moreover, not by Iraqi money (meaning profits from Iraq's own oil resources), but by America and its allies in this war. The perpetrators of this enormous error should pay restitution to the victim, not hold the victim financially responsible for damage suffered.
Posted by: Judy | April 4, 2007 7:44 AM
Judy had just demonstrated why the Nineteenth Amendment was a much bigger mistake than any GW may have made.
Posted by: Joe Kirkup | April 4, 2007 7:49 AM
Who the hell asked him to send the troops there in the first place..this is the guy who lied to the whole world about WMD and stuff like that and even after the war was over..this is the guy who got voted into being a president again!!
True Saddam was a tyrant, but the guy shouldn't have lied about WMD's and stuff - Saddam wasn't the guy who banged a couple of planes into a few buildings that was Osama.
And the irony of it all:
A headline from the front page of The Observer a few days ago said
"Washington and London accuse Iran of widespread interference in Iraq" - Heh! Heh! I laugh on reading that..
Posted by: x | April 4, 2007 7:52 AM
Despite the rather narrow viewpoint of the post that inspired all these comments, I would note the executive branch is not alone in selectively attending to the constitution. The Supremes, congress, state and locale bureaucrats -- these form a veritable crowd of lesser leaders (if so they can be called) that have no knowledge of, or even agree with, what the Founders had in mind. The Supremes have gutted and twisted the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the executive and legislative branches (even under Clinton) repeatedly attempt to pervert the Interstate Commerce Act to achieve unconstitutional objectives.
Posted by: Keith | April 4, 2007 7:54 AM
And on the Chicago Tribune, I quote:
Asked about his former campaign strategist, Matthew Dowd, who recently publicly criticized the president for his conduct of the war, Bush said: "I respect Matthew. . . . I understand his anguish over war, understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew, as it is a lot of other people in our country.
"Matthew's case . . . as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable," Bush said. "In other words, he's got a son in the . . . U.S. armed forces, and I mean, I can understand Matthew's concerns."
End of Quote
Hello..how come you understand it when it happens to someone close to you and not otherwise?? Duh!
Posted by: x | April 4, 2007 8:07 AM
So, what you are saying is that we should just screw over our troops? Forget giving them anything decent. I mean, they can just go farm their own food and fix there vehicles with tape right?
Posted by: Jackson | April 4, 2007 8:11 AM
"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
Jimmy Carter, Democrat.
(quote supporting previous post).
Posted by: Alain Perri | April 4, 2007 8:12 AM
Hey, Mike! At least the brainless right-wing trolls you have summoned are a respite from the brainless creationist trolls, eh?
A shame their comments aren't any better thought out. Oh, well, life in the USA...
Posted by: NJ | April 4, 2007 8:13 AM
The President is right and the Congress is wrong. Congress authorized this war and, until now, has adequately funded the war.
Congress has the constitutional authority to vote to stop funding the war. But Congress doesn't have the consitutional authority to undeclare a war. The war continues as long as the military fights it, under the President's authority.
The President has the constitutional authority to veto the bills that he believes are not in the nations best interest. In this case what he believes is in the best interest conflicts with the will of the people -- if we are to believe the polls. But our political leaders are not required by the constitution to do the will of the people. *Leadership* sometimes requires that you do the unpopular thing.
It would be incredibly short-sighted for us to set an arbitrary withdraw (surrender) date. Giving up on Iraq would have mid to long term consequences that are simply not acceptable. The people of our nation can not have properly digested that fact. I would hope that is true of the Democratic leaders in Congress as well. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not sacrificing our nations future for their own short term political gain.
President Bush should be applauded for acting in the nations best interest in the face of a political tsunami.
Posted by: Brian | April 4, 2007 8:17 AM
To Jackson: "So, what you are saying is that we should just screw over our troops?"
The bill does not stop funding to the troops it sets a deadline to bring the troops back or else the funding will stop - it's high time someone worked with a deadline here. The White House and the Congress have disagreed on the deadline March v/s September ...in any case my perception is that if even if the Congress revise the bill to put in the deadline of September - possibly a President who stood for his word would agree to put pen on paper, but not this one..
Posted by: x | April 4, 2007 8:19 AM
Okay, let's see when both houses were Republican and the President asked for emergency funding it took about 3 months in one case and 4 months in the other for them to come up with pork laden bills that were signed. And let's know that the "pork" in the current bills, which are for more money that asked for, includes money for the Veterans Administration and implementation of the 9/11 Commission report. So the President will not sign a bill that supports our troops and includes money for needed programs.
Of course it is fortunate that there is no Republican spin on this....
Posted by: Jim | April 4, 2007 8:22 AM
Thank you "x". I was slightly confused about the point of the article.
Posted by: Jackson | April 4, 2007 8:28 AM
Zoology? That only makes you an expert on primates and liberals. Otherwise, nice try.
Posted by: Schratboy | April 4, 2007 8:32 AM
I agree with many things in your viewpoint however, since all I have to go on is what the press tells me, or elects not to, my personal opinion isn't worth much. Hard to know who's doing the worst job, the administration or the congress? The "press" is obviously the outfit we need to run the government. Clearly they could do no worse. They're paid professionals, not elected officials obligated to pay for being elected.
DW
Posted by: DWilson | April 4, 2007 8:35 AM
I have an uncle named DWilson
Posted by: Jacob | April 4, 2007 8:36 AM
Well, I've voted Democratic most of my life, that is until Gore and Kerry. I'm no fan of the Bush or Kennedy aristocracies, but I've had it with so called american's (lower case on purpose) willingness to trash our country just because of an irrational hatred of Bush. Islamic sharia law makes communism look like kindergarten play, and at the end of the day that's what this is all about. You people (who hate Bush so much you're willing to allow the world to be infected with Sharia law), will be the first to wail and gnash your teeth.
Paradoxically, Gore and Bush are both right in their pet thesis. Most of you so called liberals are really america haters and will be the first to be sacrificed when the Somali taxi drivers pull out their stash of weapons.
Posted by: BGC | April 4, 2007 8:44 AM
Surely, the Endgame is to seize the Iraqi and other oils, but since its the Bushy's, Halliburtonians, Exxonians, etc, are the ones to reap that, may be Bush can open a line of credit with the Oily's to fight wirh the last one of a volunteer army to then truly declare "Mission Accomplished"
Posted by: Dr.Yehia Badran | April 4, 2007 8:46 AM
it is time to get rid of george bush. he has never followed the rules or laws.do not let him have two more years.by that time we may not be saveable.STOP HIM NOW
Posted by: donald share | April 4, 2007 8:49 AM
Bush's argument that withholding funding amounts to not supporting the troops is illogical.
Yes, withholding funding means not supporting the troops as they follow their current orders based on objectives set by Bush himself. Left without money to pay the troops to do what he wants, Bush could choose to stretch them further (i.e. he'd be the one not supporting them) or to bring them home.
I'm hoping people see through his deception, which seeks to pull on our patriotic heartstrings.
His related argument that the military asked for the surge is similarly disingenuous. Yes, the military asked for the surge--in order to fulfill the objectives that Bush himself set. In fact, the general asked for a much larger surge, which Bush realized no one would let him have. So in choosing to propose a smaller surge than the miliatary commanders asked for (80K troops), isn't he the one not suporting the troops? The Iraq Study Group recommended a far different approach, which was supported by many in the military, but which Bush has rejected.
And all the arguments about "we're just fighting terrorists" show the same oversimplifcation that Bush himself has been prone to (like when he used to purposefully say "Saddam" instead of "Osama" back in 2003). We're not just fighting terrorists. We've acted in Iran's interest by reopening an ancient conflict between Sunni and Shia, similar to the centuries-long conflicts that led to bloody wars between Protestant and Catholic Christians. It's not clear how situating ourselves in the middle of this struggle is to our benefit--or can succeed.
Mariner
Posted by: Mariner | April 4, 2007 8:53 AM
The conservatives keep bringing up how the left wants to destroy the second amendment and since thats the case, they can't attack somebody else who is destroying the Constitution. That is a laughable argument. If I say 2+2=4, but then I say 7+8 = 15, you can't say "well, he's wrong about the first statement, so he must be wrong about the second." They're two independent actions. Even if you assume they're wrong about the second amendment, it gives absolutely no justification to assume they're wrong about thinking Bush is wrong. If you make that argument, you're just trying to shift focus away from Bush being wrong. In fact, you're even implying he is wrong. You're basically responding to "bush is wrong" with "yea?? well... so are you guys when you try to get rid of the second amendment." Two wrongs don't make a right.
To all those saying, "well, congress voted to put them there, so they should fund them." well, they're also trying to take them out of that horrible failure. Beyond that, they were put there based on horrible intelligence. The entire war is a farce and should never have occurred. Now that this is obvious PLUS how badly its being handled, they want to cut their losses. The wisest thing you can learn is to walk away from battles you can't win. Persistence alone will not win a war and thats all the President is throwing at it. Congress wants the troops back. Therefore, by saying cutting funding will hurt the troops, its really saying, "well, congress isn't giving me enough to do what i want, but i'll do it anyway and its just gonna hurt us."
Bush is ignored the Constitution completely. Even if you assume the lefts (not all of them are even lefts by the way) are trying to hurt the Constitution (and by "hurt", you really should be saying "amend" because they're trying to change it legally as opposed to Bush just not following it) it does not justify Bush's actions. Unless you tell you're kid, "oh billy did something wrong? oh, well, you can go off and do something wrong too."
can we at least get some intelligent conservatives to discuss this? granted, i know we get some unintelligent liberals posting in response, but it seems we *only* get unintelligent conservatives and it just makes their side look *even* worse.
Posted by: Paul | April 4, 2007 9:00 AM
Paul,
I have a friend I call "The Mud Lady" because she sends me emails, mostly personal or technical, that are completely undecipherable. If you're single, you two might want to hook up.
Posted by: Joe Kirkup | April 4, 2007 9:05 AM
Now I can understand why Joe finds some of his mails undecipherable
Posted by: x | April 4, 2007 9:29 AM
Joe Kirkup,
"Matt Penfold complaining about other people's typos."
I am not sure what post of mine you think you read but nowhere have I complained about other people's typing errors. I have complained about their spelling mistakes but since they are not the same thing I doubt that is what can have confused you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 4, 2007 9:32 AM
Oh and Joe,
Your grasp of the English language does not seem to be all that great. You seem to not understand what the word liberal means.
Here is a hint: It does NOT mean left-wing. It does mean a person who accepts the idea of liberalism as being a valid and worthwhile poltical philosophy (when used a noun) or when used as an adjective is used to indicate something that adheres to those ideas. If you still have problems with the concept of liberalism Wikipedia has a good introduction to the concept. I would also add that liberalism was a major influence on the US founding fathers.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 4, 2007 9:38 AM
The only way to stabilize Iraq would be to undertake something akin to General Eric Shinseki's pre-invasion recommendation that provide for 500,000 troops to take control of a nation of 26 million people. Of course, Donald Rumsfeld shouted down Shinseki and ran him out of the military. The 140,000 troops there now cannot do the job, even with a "surge". As it is, our troops are suffering through a foreign civil war of Bush's making.
P.S. Will some of the constitutional "experts" here please support their arguments with something more than hot air?
P.P.S. This video is worth watching, no matter where you stand in this debate. Thanks to the Okcitykid for sharing the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpkMKKIqeqE
Posted by: RayL | April 4, 2007 10:00 AM
I realize being a student in zoology qualifies you as a geopolitical expert, however I disagree with your premise.
An analogy if I may. Let's say we elected you to run the zoo. You consult with animal nutritionists to determine the diet fed to the animals, and then you (the decider) listen to their advice. Meanwhile, someone else who desparately wants your job convinces a very vocal group that the diet is horrible and dangerous to the animals and their diet plan is much better. Of course, when asked what their diet plan is, they just repeat that yours is bad for the animals. Sort of like when Dick Durbin said, "The democratic strategists have advised it is better to keep pressure on the President, rather than solidify a policy."
So they vote to only approve your food budget if you agree to stop feeding the animals in 3 months and let them fend for themselves. Oh yeah, and there is an additional 36 billion dollars in there so we can build a giant pink ferris wheel in Arkansas.
Congress voted to go to war. That does not, and should not, give them the authority to micromanage the way it is conducted against the advice of the commanders in theatre. This current bill is strictly political, has wasted 2 months, and will only make the situation in Iraq worse.
If the democrats had spent less time condeming Bush for every single decision he made and more time condemning those that are blowing up innocent civilians, this war would already be over. But that wouldn't get them elected in '08 would it?
Posted by: DL | April 4, 2007 10:35 AM
awesome commentary. amazing how ridiculous our system can be, in what were infrequently endearing ways and now are mostly frightening ways. thanks.
Posted by: kate | April 4, 2007 10:36 AM
So far, Joe has revealed himself to be against suffrage, and kind of a dick, too.
So we're clear: the idea that somehow we're safer because we're "taking the fight to them" is misguided - it is simply impossible to know yet whether we are any safer than we were pre-9/11.
Posted by: Wundabah | April 4, 2007 10:43 AM