Or, You’re Gonna Have to Do More than Debate Non-binding Resolutions If Ya Really Want Us out of Iraq

Let’s first stop calling it the “Iraq War.” From now on, it ought to be known as “Bush’s War” and his alone. Re-label the whole abomination just like the Republicans morphed the phrase “Estate Taxes” into so-called “Death Taxes” even though only large estates were actually taxed anything. That’ll make it tougher for him to sell.

While we are at re-labeling, has anyone else noticed how much the White House's entire Iraq War promotion scam is like those Nigerian fraud schemes that constantly plague our e-mails, both as to the techniques used and the public's astonishing gullibility? No wonder there seems to be no way to stop either type of con game. So, let's start with not only calling it Bush's personal video game, but what it really is, a bloody mess promoted on fraudulent grounds so a tiny few people could make a lot of money.

That way, if the President wants to send more boots to Iraq as cannon fodder, we are now free to ask him why doesn’t he draft from that long list of incompetent political hacks he keeps nominating to head agencies like FEMA or become judges? They won’t do any good there, but at least when they got killed, it wouldn’t be the unmitigated tragedy it is every time our real soldiers are wasted.

Or, how about a new rule that Bush can’t send any more American kids to Iraq until at least his own children are drafted in the Army and join the contingent? Embarrass the heck out of him in a way the press might report.

Or, how about we offer a compromise to Bush? We tell him that he can have his “surge” in troops, more even if his generals are willing to openly state they need it and it would be worth while. BUT, in return, the President must agree that if he cannot finally show “mission actually accomplished” in, say, six to nine months, then he and Cheney publicly admit they were dead wrong and resign so that someone competent gets a chance. A “put up or shut up” policy in other words. The press might like that.

Better yet, instead of asking him, how about telling him to end the War. Keep in mind, Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to declare War. The Executive Branch doesn’t. It’s quite clearly specified in the US Constitution, not that many people in Washington seem to have read anything in the Constitution. Granted the President has a significant amount of operational control over certain, although not all, of the military issues. BUT, suppose Congress chooses to formally declare Peace instead of War? Suppose Congress rescinded its ill advised resolution initially authorizing the President to use force in Iraq? Suppose it declared that further use of force by the US Military personnel in Iraq except in self defense would be illegal and that anyone issuing orders for offensive use of force would be committing a High Crime or Misdemeanor authorizing indictment or impeachment as appropriate.

Try it Congress. Please. The anti-war folks in the deliberative body, especially ones in the Senate, are already looking like idiots with their deliberating forever over “non-binding resolutions.” The Bush diehard loyalists have managed to make them look like laughing stocks who can’t even get meaningless words voted on.

If nothing else, trying some of the above ploys might tie the President up so much with lawyers trying to sort out the legalities that he becomes too busy to engage in further mischief with other countries such as Iran or Syria. This almost certainly would be a better route than simply trying to cut off funding for Bush’s current and planned Middle East “Crusades.” That conceivably might jeopardize the troops already there. Obviously, the President cares nothing about them, but the rest of us do.

If Congress wants to cut off funding for anything, how about cutting off the White House’s money for speech writers, lawyers, heat, water, booze, waiters, football channels, plumbers, toilet paper and the like. He’s not granted those in the Constitution. That sort of cutting would do more good and harm few. And, it wouldn’t be a meaningless gesture. Let him finally experience some personal deprivations like our military does overseas. After all, he declared this was supposedly a “Struggle for Civilization” itself. Let him show it by struggling through without air conditioning.

Besides, it would be a terrific PR bombshell, especially since the White House wants to pretend that “non-essentials” like health care, veterans benefits, protection of our food sources, and education should be trimmed from the domestic budget to pay for his war. Think how much fun it would be to hoist him on his own gold plated petard. The supposed “conservatives” would not even be allowed to complain since we are saving a few bucks in the process.

Bush seems to think he’s got Congress boxed in. If so, it’s time to start thinking outside the box.

Okay, some of those suggestions are somewhat silly. At least though they do not on their face sound as silly as trying to tell the American solid majority against the war that “non-binding resolutions” will somehow help.

If you don’t like any of those ideas, then it's time to demand Congress finally file a bill of impeachment so that investigations can begin using subpoena power to determine whether, as suspected, high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred in office. The end result of that process can be very binding. As traumatizing as the process is, the Founding Fathers believed in its efficacy and enshrined it in the Constitution for good reason. It is a tool we have been granted to cleanse the political system. Let’s use it.

The one thing certain is that whether it’s 20,000 troops or 200,000 or 2,000,000, Bush’ll still screw it up. For instance, the only ally among the Iraqi civil war factions Bush still had was the Kurds. So, why did he deliberately enrage them by a surprise raid on the Iranian consulate in Kurd territory arresting six diplomats they supposedly had invited? It nearly resulted in some American troops almost getting shot by Kurds at a road block and did result in a promise to shot Americans if it happened again. Apparently, the decision was attributable to Bush personally. Is there any tactical, strategic or operational decision that Bush is not capable of bollixing?

Similarly, when questioned about the botched vigilante-like hangings in Iraq, Bush sheepishly admitted “They could have handled things better.” That’s my candidate for understatement of the 21st Century and the kindest possible epitaph for the Bush Administration.

The bottom line is we need to stop him now. The so-called non-binding resolutions, which seems to be the only thing the opposition has come up with so far make the party look like a disorganized pack ineffectual weaklings. If the current office holders are not capable of doing anything useful, then perhaps they should resign and let other, more focused, newcomers have a chance.

No comments: