Harry Reid has once again demonstrated his intellectual bankruptcy and moral cowardice by staging an hours-long debate demanding withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
How would he respond to the killing in Iraq that would undoubtably follow?
How would he respond to renewed terror attacks on the US at home and abroad?
Has he ever read the Constitution and noticed that the Congress does not have operational control of the armed forces? Or does he believe he is part of some European parliment?
Yes, Congress could cut off funding, but then what? There is a precedent. 100 years or so ago Teddy Roosevelt wanted to send the Fleet around the world to demonstrate America's new military prowess. Congress refused to budget the money.
TR discovered he had enough money to send the Fleet half way, which he did, and then left Congress with a dilemma - leave the Fleet to rust in the Philippines or cough up the money to bring it home.
W could do the same thing - spending every cent at his disposal to continue to conflict and leaving it to Congress to find a way to stop him. For instance, he could divert funding from the troops in South Korea or Germany or in Bosnia.
Would that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could be seen as what they are - hacks who put their will to power ahead of the best interests of the nation. They call to mind the tactic Lenin took after the Tsar fell and a more or less moderate government took over Russia. He instructed his followers to oppose everything, to block every change or reform to defeat the moderates, push the nation deeper into chaos and to set the stage for a Communist take over.
But there is one bit of comfort in Comrade Reid's antics - his ever increasing level of hysteria suggests that the "surge" is working, and he wants desperately to derail it before success becomes undeniable.
Harry Reid almost makes us wish the Constitution did not prohibit bills of attainder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment