 |
|
April 9, 2014
Samuel G. Freedman: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau
Jessica Ivins: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau
Matthew Mientka: How Beans, Peas, And Chickpeas Cleanse Bad Cholesterol and Lowers Risk of Heart Disease
April 8, 2014
Dana Dovey: Coffee Drinkers Rejoice! Your Cup Of Joe Can Prevent Death From Liver Disease
Chris Weller: Electric 'Thinking Cap' Puts Your Brain Power Into High Gear
April 4, 2014
Amy Peterson: A life of love: How to build lasting relationships with your children
John Ericson: Older Women: Save Your Heart, Prevent Stroke Don't Drink Diet
John Ericson: Why 50 million Americans will still have spring allergies after taking meds
Sarah Boesveld: Teacher keeps promise to mail thousands of former students letters written by their past selves
April 2, 2014
Dan Barry: Should South Carolina Jews be forced to maintain this chimney built by Germans serving the Nazis?
Frank Clayton: Get happy: 20 scientifically proven happiness activities
Susan Scutti: It's Genetic! Obesity and the 'Carb Breakdown' Gene
|
| |
Jewish World Review
Feb. 22, 2007
/ 4 Adar, 5767
A trinity of fantasists
By
Bob Tyrrell
| 
|
|
|
|
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Wherever they are I hope the authors of our Constitution are pondering the spectacle now bedazzling Capitol Hill. In the admirable governing document that the Founding Fathers fashioned they made the president "Commander-in Chief" of our military. Yet, according to the novel reading of the newly elected Democratic majority, the Founding Fathers denied the president the instrumentalities to be commander-in-chief. For more than two centuries, through wars large and small, American presidents have been equipping armies, deciding strategy and sending those armies into battle. Now, however, along come the Hon. Nancy Pelosi, the Hon. Harry Reid and the incomparable Hon. John P. Murtha with their exegesis of the Constitution.
Past presidents were in error. They acted unconstitutionally when they in their impertinence had their generals and admirals train and equip our forces. Those duties, according to this trinity of fantasists, were to be left to committees on Capitol Hill, even committees dominated by a president's opponents. Thus Speaker of the House Pelosi has charged Murtha to divine the conditions under which reinforcements will fight in Iraq. The Democrats approved of putting Lt. Gen. David Petraeus in charge of coalition forces in Iraq, but they do not approve of his strategy of "surge." Thus he will apparently have to sit tight until Murtha, an opponent of the war, decides how his troops will be armed and trained.
Does this sound a bit fla fla? Has any war ever been fought this way? What are the Democrats thinking? They are thinking of more electoral victories in 2008. If they can effectively hamstring our efforts in Iraq, they somehow think the American electorate will blame the whole thing on the Republicans. The worse the sectarian violence becomes, the better for Democratic prospects. The more Iraq descends into anarchy, the more likely the American people will whoop it up for the political party that, as the Washington Post has put it, linked "support for President Bush's war-funding request to strict standards of resting, training and equipping combat forces."
Frankly I think the Democrats are taking reckless chances with their fate. For a certitude, they are treating our military even more recklessly. The Democrats' political meddling in this war is obviously dragging it out and endangering our troops. In fact, the rancorous way they have moved from support of the war to opposition has had to encourage our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere.
You might recall in the aftermath of 9/11, as we drove the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, serious observers of world events such as the British historian Niall Ferguson questioned American resolve. Ferguson seemed to believe that in light of this new threat of international terror originating from the Middle East's rogue states, the United States would demonstrate the resolve to overcome this new threat to the democracies.
Well, Professor Ferguson, you underestimated the partisan nature of contemporary American politics. So eager for high office are the Democrats that they would endanger our war effort to gain political advantage. They voted for war in 2002. They sneered at the handful of anti-war activists led by the likes of Professor Noam Chomsky who opposed it. Then they suffered the disturbing sense that their support of wartime president George W. Bush marginalized them and helped him in his 2004 reelection bid. All of a sudden, they fabricated a complaint, to wit, "Bush lied to us about WMDs."
That bogus complaint now justifies them in harassing his execution of the war. Note that the Democrats are not actually calling for retreat. They might eventually, but for now all they want to do is take on Constitutional powers that no other Congress has ever taken on: the power to manage a war. It is disgraceful and it is very stupid. It assumes that the American people will not hold them accountable when bad consequences follow upon their bad behavior.
President George W. Bush is in a difficult situation in Iraq. Yet from the looks of it he will be saved, if not by Petraeus then by the Democrats' shameful political tactics in time of war.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Bob Tyrrell is editor in chief of The American Spectator. Comment by clicking here.
Archives
© 2006, Creators Syndicate
|
|
Columnists
Toons
Lifestyles
|
