The Role of Congress; But Not the One This Congress Likes

Once again today I ask that you read Robert Scheer's essay of July 17, about James Madison and King George, found on Truthdig.com. Added on July 19th. Also check out Norman Solomon's piece on alternet.org about speaking from the grave. Note in particular the last paragraph

The "way forward" (even writing that phrase makes me gag) for Dems in Congress is to accept the GOP challenge, and not so veiled threat, to suck it up and de-fund military action in Iraq. Notice that I did not say "de-fund the war in Iraq". Read on.

What's hard to understand, and actually baffling, is that the voters in 2006 clearly told Congress to stop the fighting and killing in Iraq. Why do the Dems continue to fall prey to the Cheney/Bush ploy, by using the language and terminology of war? For Senator Reid to say, "the war is lost" is to admit, acknowledge, that we have been at war, when Reid and Company, or their predecessors never declared war, as the Constitution provides. It's not OK to call it semantics. It's the law under the Constitution, what keeps us together, and it's being threatened by power hungry people, Cheney/Bush and Company, who want to rule, not govern; the very thing James Madison and Company thought and worried so about and tried to prevent.

The Constitution, according to Scheer, and what he thinks were the views of James Madison, one of our most astute Founders, provides that Congress has the power to declare war and to fund war. That is not vested in the President. Once declared and funded the President is Commander in Chief of the military, and, in that capacity, is charged with managing war.

Cheney/Bush, not wanting to be fettered by such inconvenient things as the Constitution, snookered Congress into voting for a resolution giving them what they needed to use military force, while not actually declaring war. Cheney/Bush, of course, interpreted that as tantamount to a declaration of war, but had in their pocket their packed Supreme Court ruling that the President, as Commander in Chief is allowed to respond to a "state of war" against the United States.

Many in Congress now say they didn't see it coming. Horseshit. They saw the mood of the country after 9/11, Cheney/Bush riding that mood, and they caved. Why? Is it because they didn't want to lose their jobs in the next election by being seen as soft and unpatriotic, or is there something else which no one wants to touch or talk about; one or more elephants in the room? I've written about that in an earlier blog, "It's the Oil People"

Lets see what we get, if we can strip away the spin, propaganda, political posturing and gotcha maneuverings of politicians on both sides of the aisle, who are more interested in scoring points in their little political games, and keeping their jobs, than they are in looking after the health of the Republic.

What are the facts? What can't be denied or spun by anyone?

Congress didn't declare war on Iraq, but essentially authorized it in a back door, cover your ass, way. Congress has continued to pass legislation to fund "the troops" in Iraq, but technically haven't passed legislation to fund a war because they did not declare a war which they can fund. Consequently they have no authority, under the Constitution, to pass legislation for funding what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere. By definition, according to the Constitution, we are not at war with anyone.

Then, what the hell is going on? Politics pure and simple; wanting control of the White House and Congress. The arguments are campaign rhetoric, smoke and mirrors stuff designed to make the voters think they're doing what they can, for or against the "war" in Iraq.

The Dems are posturing to be seen by the voters as against the "war", and as long as they can keep the dialog going on that basis, they can say they are trying against all the odds and impediments thrown up by the Republicans, to do the will of the people. But they know they can't without a veto proof Congress, and that's their cover.

For a more specific analysis of why I see it that way, please read my post, "It's the Oil People", and also read what Robert Scheer has to say about the power and influence of the military/industrial complex which Ike warned us about years ago, and how that influences politicians of all stripes.

You just might begin to view what you read and hear about in the so-called Main Stream Media in a different light. And if the thought of impeachment crosses your mind please know that some very smart Constitutional lawyers and scholars are beginning to go public with their conviction that impeachment is not a Constitutional crisis, but the appropriate cure for the Constitutional crisis we are faced with today.

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper