Is Restraint Plausible?
Democrats are considering a revision of the bill that allowed President Bush to go to war in 2002. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (the second ranking Democrat in the House) suggested the revision of the bill to allow more Congressional oversight and influence over presidential policy. Hoyer believes that a revision of the bill is quite plausible because the original language of the bill suggests that U.S. forces were to enter Iraq on a “nation building” mission; not conflict resolution. The solution in these terms would in theory arise out of military spending bills (the power of the purse) for military and diplomatic action in the war torn country.
If this bill is passed by Congress, there is no doubt that the president’s power will be curtailed in a policy making role. Even the president is in need of money these days. But restricting the president’s power as commander-in-chief is not a feasible option. Evidently, the Constitution does not allow for such actions. Congressional hearings about the U.S.’s actions in are to begin in haste. For the first time since 2003, the American public and Congress will finally receive some answers. If more detrimental information comes out of these hearings, there is a good chance that Congress will have more concrete evidence in which to restrain the president’s personal war in his sandcastle known as Iraq.
Stepping up diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi government is another vital part of this proposed bill. It is obvious to both the president and Congress that the Iraqis need to take over their own security operations. Their prime minister has promised more troops to the cause, but one has to question the commitment of the Iraqi people. Just like other human beings, people tend to become irritated when a bad situation does not change in due time. The status quo is not acceptable to those living through this atrocity, much less those with a comfortable view from 3000 miles away. I have stated the answer to this quandary countless time, but like most Americans whose opinions do not count to this administration, I have to ask this question instead: what’s the use?
Democrats are considering a revision of the bill that allowed President Bush to go to war in 2002. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (the second ranking Democrat in the House) suggested the revision of the bill to allow more Congressional oversight and influence over presidential policy. Hoyer believes that a revision of the bill is quite plausible because the original language of the bill suggests that U.S. forces were to enter Iraq on a “nation building” mission; not conflict resolution. The solution in these terms would in theory arise out of military spending bills (the power of the purse) for military and diplomatic action in the war torn country.
If this bill is passed by Congress, there is no doubt that the president’s power will be curtailed in a policy making role. Even the president is in need of money these days. But restricting the president’s power as commander-in-chief is not a feasible option. Evidently, the Constitution does not allow for such actions. Congressional hearings about the U.S.’s actions in are to begin in haste. For the first time since 2003, the American public and Congress will finally receive some answers. If more detrimental information comes out of these hearings, there is a good chance that Congress will have more concrete evidence in which to restrain the president’s personal war in his sandcastle known as Iraq.
Stepping up diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi government is another vital part of this proposed bill. It is obvious to both the president and Congress that the Iraqis need to take over their own security operations. Their prime minister has promised more troops to the cause, but one has to question the commitment of the Iraqi people. Just like other human beings, people tend to become irritated when a bad situation does not change in due time. The status quo is not acceptable to those living through this atrocity, much less those with a comfortable view from 3000 miles away. I have stated the answer to this quandary countless time, but like most Americans whose opinions do not count to this administration, I have to ask this question instead: what’s the use?
No comments:
Post a Comment