Wednesday, December 27, 2006

The Commander in Chief is Bush not Congress

To Biden and the other Democrats who sound like they have just become president. I think that you need to review the Constitution because you seem to think that Congress has control of troop levels and can tell the President, who is the Commander in Chief, what to do in Iraq:

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he would oppose any plan by President Bush to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.


"I totally oppose the surging of additional troops into Baghdad, and I think it is contrary to the overwhelming body of informed opinion, both people inside the administration and outside the administration," Biden told reporters yesterday. He said he plans to hold hearings for his panel next month in a bid to influence the president's decision.
You can oppose it all you want to the media and have a hearing where you stack the deck with people who don't know anything about what's going on in Iraq but there isn't too much you can do except defund the troop and I don't think you have the guts to do so.

And to demonstrate your lack of power, how are you going to force Bush to give you an advise and consent role (which appears to be what you really want) when you can't even get information about what he's reading:
Biden said that one problem with the present discussion of a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq is that no one can specify exactly what the president may be studying. He and others have asked for specifics on the troops' mission, the number involved and how long they would be in Iraq.
I think that this kind of demonstrates your lack of power, doesn't it? And why would Bush tell you people his strategy in Iraq when you would just leak it to the NY Times.

This whole article is just a stupid attempt to influence the public, it's pure Democratic propaganda and that point can be underscored by this:
Biden said that he hopes to generate "some bipartisan consensus in the Senate" but that he does not expect to do more than try to influence Republican senators who could then affect Bush's decisions. He said that, at his last meeting with Bush, after the November elections, he told the president, "all we can do is try to . . . cooperate with you, and when we disagree with you, try to influence your decision by making the case to the public at large that we should change course."
Influence the public? Who would sit through a hearing where you pontificate for hours and occasionally let some general speak. It would be a media event for a couple weeks and then Bush will do just what he wants to do because he has the power and you don't.