You know, sometimes the utter ignorance of our members of congress is stunning. I just read on Yahoo News that Nancy Pelosi, House majority leader said,

“I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran.”

Shocking. Nancy Pelosi has obviously never read Article II of the United States Constitution where it says, “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States”. Its not as if there is some difficult question of interpretation here; the commander of the United States military requires no outside authority by which his acts are “authorized”. It is his, and his decision alone whether or not to use military force. Period.

But as if this weren’t enough, the democrats have decided not to defund the Iraqwar–and I realize this is somewhat of a digression.?Ǭ† Being the spineless cowards they are, they have decided to “force a slow end” to the war instead of de-funding it outright.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

So basically, in order to obviate themselves of any responsibility for the negative consequences of leaving Iraq, they will force bush to choose between a failed Iraq and the sacrifice more American troops without any certainty they will be able to finish the job after his term is over. This essentially forces Bush to both impliment the democrat’s policy, and yet still take responsibility for any outcomes that may ensue (which cannot possibly be good). They, of course, would risk too much politically if their decision to pull out of Iraq causes another terrorist attack… so this is the way to wash their hands of any responsibility for their policies. As one of my favorite editors at the Wall Street Journal said in a recent email column,

So the idea is to keep the troops in harm’s way but take all steps possible to prevent them from prevailing, in the hope that the Democrats will benefit politically from American defeat.

It’s sickening… This entire Iraq issue has turned into nothing more than a partisan battle to win political power at home and ruin the presidency of their opponent–all the while letting our men and women die to ensure this end is reached. As Hitchens would say, they’ve fallen off the gutter into the sewer.

____________________________________________
update: the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
——————————————————————

The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to “support” the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their “bravery,” while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to “protect” the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal.