Broder again. Yeesh, wotta loser!

It's far from clear that Congress' options in restraining Bush's ablity to keep the Iraq War going are as limited as David Broder makes them out to be. Broder concedes that Congress controls the money, but forgets about tools like the Boland Amendment, a law that forced President Reagan to circumvent the clear intent of Congress and to fund the Nicaraguan Contras from a "off-the-shelf" funding capability.

The real giveaway as to where Broder's sympathies lie is in the followin sentence:

"...the House and Senate Democrats will meet soon to prepare a final version of the emergency funding bill that Bush has requested to finance..."

Where exactly is the emergency? The Iraq War is in it's fifth year. It's like Germany's fuhrer saying that his 1943 budget is an "emergency." There is no energency to justify that phrase. For Broder to go along with Bush's propagandistic designation makes it clear where Broder stands.

Broder's point here:

"From the start, Democrats ought to concede one big point: Absent any readiness on their part to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq, those forces will be there as long as George Bush wants them to remain."

is utterly without any logical basis. Being Commander-in-Chief does not give Bush dictatorial powers. Congress doesn't need to concede anything. All of Broder's further suggestions are a complete waste of time as he recommends that Congress give up so much ground, they then might as well pack it in.

"That is not an ideal solution, from anyone's point of view. But something like it is probably the best compromise available..."

Sorry, but this is far too pessimistic for me. The powers of Congress vs those of the President are not set in stone. They are open to negotiation and alteration. I recommend ignoring Broder and contining to end the war.

No comments: