Boston Globe: Calling For Withdrawal

Charles Stevenson of the Boston Globe attempts to reference history in this article regarding Congress’ ability to declare war and authorize the use of force.

Interesting…the Democrats love to quote history, quote Bible verses, etc, when it suits their dark and evil purposes. I ran an article a couple of days regarding, namely, the Sedition Act of 1918, whereby President Woodrow Wilson declared it illegal to say or print anything to be perceived traitorous about the government or military. In that same article, I also referenced Franklin Delano Roosevelt interning thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

“Those who say Congress shouldn’t micromanage military operations or shouldn’t interfere with the commander in chief’s freedom of action need to explain why these precedents should have no weight now.”

Bottom line is this: the Democrats use history in a vain attempt to alter public perception and change history. Regarding Stevens’ column, he conveniently fails to mention that the President looked at the same evidence regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction as President Clinton did, as well as the CIA, and SEVERAL foreign intelligence services.

“If lawmakers care about their institution — and about the course of the war in Iraq and the US soldiers fighting there — they should take whatever action majorities can support, even if those are only advisory measures rather than binding law. They can even impose conditions in one paragraph and allow the president to suspend the restriction by another. Even that is better than giving the president free rein.”

Yes, by all means, cut off funding to the troops; put our fighting forces in harm’s way; cast a pall over this country that would rival that of Vietnam; damage irrevocably the American psyche. I’ve discussed the ramifications of an early precipitous withdrawal from Iraq ad nauseum.

But by all means, vote to withdraw the troops. Pander to the fringe-groups, appease the terrorists, demonstrate our lack of collective resolve to wage the most important war of my lifetime.

“Consider some of those binding restrictions. President McKinley was barred by law from annexing Cuba. There were many laws limiting Franklin Roosevelt’s ability to send arms to nations threatened by Hitler until shortly before Pearl Harbor, so the president had to wait for the law to be changed.”

I would state vociferously that Congress curbed past president’s authority and restricted war authorization for political purposes, not out of necessity. Congress is inherently a political organization. In the past they served, supposedly at the behest of the people’s will. I would contend that in the latter half of the 20^th century, their focus shifted from appeasing their constituents to appeasing lobbyists and fringe groups. Thus, rather than doing what is best for their country, they do what’s best to keep them in office. Note recent polls confirming the American people’s dissatisfaction with Congress.

“During the Vietnam War, President Nixon agreed to comply with several congressional restrictions on military operations: the 1969 ban on sending ground combat troops into Laos or Thailand; the 1970 ban on reintroducing US combat troops into Cambodia; and the 1973 ban on US combat operations anywhere in Southeast Asia. In 1976, President Ford reluctantly agreed to the congressional ban on US military operations in Angola.”

Note the underlying theme, Congress restricted particular actions. Stevens attempts to prove his warped point with faulty evidence. He references certain bans during the Vietnam, but unwittingly destroys his own story. Perhaps if Congress hadn’t interjected politicism into the war, the conflict may have ended differently.

The Democrats enjoy bragging about their role in cutting off funding to troops and thus ending the Vietnam War. Unsuspectingly, he hints that Congress should do the same: cut off funding and thus put our troops in harms way without the necessary tools to wage war: body armor, reinforced HumVee’s and Bradley fighting vehicles, weapons, ammunition, etc.

“President Reagan accepted the congressional restriction on US troops sent to Lebanon in 1983, permitting them to use force only in self-defense. President Clinton accepted the congressional bans on US military operations in Somalia after March 31, 1994, and in Rwanda after October 7, 1994 — measures which wrote into binding law promises already made to Congress.”

Perversely, Stevens assumes that all of these restrictions were good measures. This is classic rhetoric from the Left, assuage the enemy with words, not actions. He cites Lebanon of 1983, where we witnessed one of more the horrific acts of terrorism against our Marines (over 250 dead by a suicide truck bomber). He also references Rwanda in 1994; whether it was a Republican or Democratically-controlled Congress, he affirms stoutly that NOT acting was a good course of action.

This is the depravity only the Left can create…

Unfortunately, the Democrats have passed “non-binding” resolutions calling for an end to the war in Iraq, often under “Support Our Troops” banner. This is the warped world in which the Left lives; they dementedly believe they are assisting our fighting forces in the Middle East by revoking vital tools and equipment. That is how they “support the troops.”

So yes Congress, you go ahead; you curb the President’s authority as Commander in Chief…

crossposted at Right is Right