Doonesbury, by Garry Trudeau, has a way of very profoundly skewering the absurdities concepts in politics. This last Sunday (04.01.2007), He hit the nail on the head regarding the administration’s attitude on the budget/withdrawal debate in Congress.
There can be no better way to support the troops than to allow them to come home and live a normal life. Yet absurdly, mainstream conservative dogma insists that forcing them to continually risk their lives for a war based on deceit is somehow more supportive. My wife and I have puzzled at how the administration can claim that ending the funds for the war will somehow endanger our servicemen, when common sense assures us an end to funds for the occupation will in reality protect the lives of our servicemen—it will force the administration to pull out of Iraq.
Despite what President Bush has been dismissively asserting in his recent press conferences, the Democratic leaders in congress are not “playing politics.” They are carrying out what they see as the mandate of the American people to end the occupation of Iraq. This administration may yearn for a unitary executive office, with which they can pursue any foreign policy they wish without accountability; but the Constitution instead calls for an executive balanced by Congress and the Supreme Court. What the congressional Democrats are debating is not unwarranted and inappropriate interference in military matters or “micromanaging” the war. They are taking up their Constitutionally-authorized oversight of the executive branch’s use of the military (see section 8 of the Constitution; “The Congress shall have Power To…declare War…raise and support Armies…make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” etc). President Bush may have been fortunate enough to have enjoyed the services of a negligent, even complicit Congress for most of his presidency, but that does not mean the Democratically led Congress is unjustified in actually living up to their obligations.