Biden: Right Idea, Wrong Reason, Too Late
Revoking the blanket September 14th, 2001 Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force against terrorists and terrorist supporters.
But wait...all is not as it seems. Look at who's talking about this, Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Certainly if Biden felt so strongly about this, you'd think we would have started hearings on day one, started talking about it well before the Democrats assumed power, but he didn't. Moreover, the Senator who voted for the original resolution is giving a mealy-mouthed excuse for exploring revocation: "The WMD were not there. ...Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."
Looks like grandstanding to me, a way for Biden to act tough without actually have to say he was wrong or to explore the real reasons why that resolution should be revoked: Flagrant abuse of power by an out-of-control executive. I wonder... Is Joe Biden running for president or something?
While his motives may not be pure, his project is one that I support. I'll let his motives rest between him and the Deity for the nonce. Repealing and overturning ill-considered legislation is more important to me than why someone wants it done.
The "mission accomplished" deal might just work this time but in a sane way. Just say that bush basically said we had done what we set out to do in the original mission when he stood on the Abraham Lincoln. Therefore all was accomplished that congress gave him the authority to do, even by his own words.
Bush is mentally ill and unfit for office. Is there anything that can be done to get him to confront his anxieties and deal with them in a constructive way?
I think people who want to tell him "Wait, you can't do that!" are on the right track. By keeping him from continuing on his present track, it might force him to stop and deal with fixing his personal problems. Then again, megalomania doesn't usually allow one to tend toward admitting faults and wanting to fix them, but finding ways to make him confront himself would be worth a try.
I think Murtha is correct in wanting to cut off funding for a "surge". Congress needs to pass binding resolutions to that effect. The things that get passed in Congress will reach Bush's desk and he can veto as many of them as he wants, but if he doesn't have the money to pursue his fantasies, he's stuck. Congress controls the purse strings.
Of course backing a frightened animal into a corner may not be the best thing to do when the animal is unpredictable. In this case I think the animal has proven to be VERY predictable. He will be concerned with making up enemies so he can defeat them. He'll believe what he wants to believe, and he won't listen to conflicting views because that causes him to have to take in too much information to assimilate and sort out... in short, he doesn't listen or analyze because if he does, his head explodes. However, because he views disagreement with his views as a sort of personal attack, who knows what he might do... he might react violently.
Anyway, I believe that by not being more firm with Bush, Congress enables him. As an untreated alcoholic, he still has the behaviors and problems which caused him to drink to begin with... limited thinking skills, concrete thinking, anxiety... He needs to be dealt with firmly by Congress, which needs to firmly tell him "No".
Sadly, it seems to me that a lot of the GOP members of Congress are either as delusional as Bush or they are slaves to the financial gravy train that Bush's warmaking provides. Wasn't it Rummy who said Iraq was now a long, hard slog, or something to that effect? Dealing with Bush has proven to be the same kind of long, hard slog.
When I think of our nuclear arsenal at the disposal of someone as bedbug crazy as Dubya, I shudder.
Snave... Though this is true in a Constitutional perspective, I bet in practice Bush would just start moving money around that had already been allocated for other things and then justifying under the war powers resolution. The only "NO" that may work in the end is a Supreme Court ruling upholding Congressional budgetary authority.
WS...very true, and Biden isn't going to make it that far anyway. So all this may just be empty posturing.