A gold star round of applause for the first candidate to shove the "will you keep troops" question back down Timmah Stephnopolarkeys Softballs-Matthews Blitzer's throat and who says: "As you know Wolf, it is not up to the President to make that decision, you need to ask Congress since the Constitution vests the power and authority to authorize the deployment of forces exclusively with the legislative branch."There is a false underlying assumption in the question that a President, alone, decides whether to place troops in a foreign nation. "My agenda will be to bring the troops home immediately. I recognize that the U.S. war on Iraq and occupation is the biggest foreign policy disaster in our country's history. "Recognize the situation one of us will inherit. George Bush is the first President to return to a war the U.S. already won and then lose it. The only way the U.S. can and should remove the cloud of shame of the loss of an illegal Republican war of aggression in the Middle East is for the entire nation to commit to rebuilding Iraq - NOT occupying it. "Whether troops remain in Iraq is NOT, ultimately, the President's decision. Rather, continuing an occupation force or committing war on a non-threatening nation will ONLY depend and it will REQUIRE -- at a minimum -- the following: 1. The sovereign nation of Iraqi gives permission for U.S. troops to be stationed in their country; 2. The Congress expressly authorizes them to be there; and 3. There is a strategic need to keep them there. I do not foresee any of those three criterions being in place and I cannot imagine all three criteria ever compelling the imposition of U.S. force on a non-threatening nation. * * * * * Extra Credit Answer for candidates Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama * * * * * Responding to the questions about long-term troop deployment, war and occupation, compels an additional answer from the four members of the U.S. Senate who are running. Biden Clinton Dodd Obama (BCDO Inc.) need to convincingly advocate this answer as well: "Wolfie, I must emphasize to you and the rest of your panel of Thorazine-fed-GOP-compliant-media-whores, that the U.S. Senate can and has an obligation to end Mister Bush's ability to continue the U.S. war on Iraq.""By developing a 'Senate Global Peace & Security Caucus' of 41 or more of my colleagues under my leadership, this war will end because we can absolutely halt any funds and authorization to continue waging this illegal Republican led foreign policy failure. In addition to the four of us standing here running for president, we only need 37 of our colleagues to stand with us against any further appropriations to fund the illegal U.S. war on the Iraqi people. "As candidates for President, we have a special responsibility as spokes(wo)men for our party to lead the effort in the Senate to build and hold together the Peace & Security caucus. That is why you will see the four of us proving our leadership ability to the American people by using the power of our offices and the constitutional power Congress has to end the war. "It is not enough to talk about the "leadership" any us will bring to the White House. Instead, voters expect - and I commit to proving my ability to lead - a mere 37 of my Senate colleagues to do exactly what the overwhelming majority of Americans want congress to do and want us to do. End.The.US.WAR.On.Iraq. * * * At this point in the primary campaign and with an Iraqi occupation sapping the U.S. of its security and standing in the world, I really do not give a rat's ass about BCDO Inc's claims about troop plans for 2009. Talk is cheap, especially in primary campaign and especially when BCDO Inc are only promising what all of us already want. Who really cares what proposals BCDO Inc are putting forth for 2009-2013 when the ONLY relevant question is: who is taking the leading role in the Senate, today, to end the war. I respect the fact that we need more (& better!) Democrats in Congress. However, the "we need 2/3 of the Senate to override a veto" (or similar) arguments from BCDO Inc., ring of defeatism. These expedient rationals also minimize and ignore the (dusty) tools these leaders have at their disposal. It also allows BCDO Inc. to skirt scrutiny of their real life leadership ability and it shifts the focus to the hypothetical "what I will prefer to do if I can" future leadership intentions. The best test of Biden, Clinton, Dodd or Obama's leadership is how well they lead the Senators they have -- not the Senators they want -- into battle. They already have public support and the constitutional home-court advantage should they choose to use it. So BCDO Inc., if you want me to take your candidacies seriously: -- take your positions as U.S. Senators seriously; -- be honest about the tools you have at hand right now; and -- stop whining about the saw and screwdriver you do not have when you are not bothering to use the hammer and shovel already collecting dust in your tool shed. If our party's leaders, especially Sens. Clinton and Obama, want to concede the congressional battle, that undercuts the remaining members of the Democratic caucus. It also creates a narrative of inevitability that lets Republican members of Congress off the hook. How many times do we need to hear these questions before we hear the correct answers from our party's leaders? * * * "Thanks for asking, Wolf." "Next question?" |
