Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Bush Has Got Balls

I figured that since tonight is President Bush’s state of the union address I should take this time to comment on his proposed escalation of the Iraq war by sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq, I actually feel kind of bad that it has taken me this long to write anything about this. So here is my take on Bush’s plan.

Basically love ‘em or hate ‘em one can’t deny the fact that President Bush has got a large set of balls on him, and I am talking about big balls, balls the size of grapefruits. Despite the fact that his party was basically thrown out of Congress due almost entirely to opposition to the current handling of the Iraq war here is how President Bush has responded:

So there you have it, no matter what you think about the president you have to admit that he’s got balls. The American public opposes his plan, his military commanders oppose his plan, Iraqis oppose his plan, Congress opposes his plan and yet nothing will stop him from escalating this war…and that my friends takes balls.

So what in all of this is the response from the Democratic controlled Congress? Thus far all I have heard is that short of cutting funding for the Iraq war there really isn’t much that Congress can do to stop the president…which is complete bollocks according to constitutional scholars. In fact here is a short list of how Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to limit the President’s ability to escalate existing military engagements by capping the number of American military personnel available for deployment and by refusing to release appropriated funds:

  • In the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, P.L. 93-559, enacted during the Vietnam War, Congress limited the number of American military personnel in South Vietnam to 4,000 within six months and 3,000 within a year of the Act’s enactment.
  • The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983, P.L. 98-43, required the President to “obtain statutory authorization from the Congress with respect to any substantial expansion in the number or role in Lebanon of the United States Armed Forces, including any introduction of United States Armed Forces into Lebanon in conjunction with agreements providing for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon and for the creation of a new multinational peace-keeping force in Lebanon.”
  • Through the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1985, P.L. 98-525, Congress prohibited the use of funds appropriated in the Act or in subsequent Acts from being used to increase the number of U.S. military personnel deployed in European nations of NATO. The Act provided that Congress might authorize increased troop levels above the prescribed ceiling upon the Secretary of Defense’s certification to Congress that the European nations had taken significant measures to improve their defense capacity.
  • In the Military Construction Appropriations Act of 2001, P.L. 106-246, Congress limited the involvement of U.S. military personnel and civilian contractors in counter-narcotics activities in Colombia by prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to expand their presence above specified levels.
  • The Second Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1973, P.L. 93-50, specified that none of the funds appropriated by the Act were to be used “to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam or off the shores of Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam and South Vietnam by United States Forces and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other Act may be expended for such purpose.”
  • Congress authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1994, P.L. 103-139, but set a deadline after which appropriated funds could no longer be used to pay for their involvement. The Act specified that the deadline could only be extended if requested by the President and authorized by the Congress.
  • In the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1995, P.L. 103-335, Congress required congressional approval of “any change in the United States mission in Rwanda from one of strict refugee relief to security, peace-enforcing, or nation-building or any other substantive role” and blocked funding for continued participation of the U.S. military in Operation Support Hope beyond a specified date.
  • The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, P.L. 105-85, provided that no funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998 or any subsequent year could be used for the deployment of any U.S. ground combat forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina after a specified cutoff date unless the President first consulted with Congress and then certified to Congress that certain conditions existed in the field.

But fortunately for the president Democrats in Congress are not willing to actually do anything to stop him except for offering a non-binding resolution opposing further escalation of the war, or in other words they will be symbolically sticking their thumb up their ass (it might feel nice, but it really doesn’t accomplish anything).

I find it pathetic that even though Democrats won control of both houses due to the American publics opposition to the war in Iraq and even though 66% of the country is opposed to escalating the war Democrats are still too scared to do anything. I guess it would be nice if the Democrats decided to grow a pair sometime in the near future.

No comments: