The Imperial Presidency & A Reality Check

Just a quick note today before I head off to work.

The 20th Century, beginning with Theodore and then drastically improved upon by Franklin Roosevelt saw the rise of the Imperial Presidency. During the 19th Century, presidents before Lincoln, and ever after for awhile, had very little power at all. When phones were first installed in the White House, it was quite common for the president to answer his own phone. But all that's changed now.

Those developments have led us to President Bush, who more than anyone in recent memory embodies the Imperial Presidency. Fights between Bush and the Congress thus far have been little more than skirmishes. Under the leadership of the Republicans, the House largely went along with any and all actions taken by Bush, and with a few exceptions, gave him pretty much everything he wanted (except big ticket items like Social Security reform (which Democrats largely derailed) and Immigration reform (which his own Republicans killed)). But now with Democrats in charge, for barely 100 days, the first Congress/President fight will be over Iraq War funding.

Bush is currently criticizing the Congress basically for not giving him what he wants, and his response to that is to dig his heels in and throw a tantrum. Since when is the Presidency an all powerful position? Since when is the Congress just there to notarize all of Bush's stationary? Congress is there for a reason, and more specifically, they were vested with the power of the purse for a reason. They are specifics checks against potential power abuses by the President. If the President can't convince them that what he wants is a good idea, and he can't pay for it by himself, then it simply doesn't happen. Clinton had to put up with the same thing several times during his administration, most notably the troop withdrawal following that mess in Mogadishu in 1993.

So who does the President think he is? We didn't elect a monarch. Someone needs to give Bush a basic civics lesson. When he asks the Congress for something, it isn't a formality, it's an actual request that they can consider and deny if they so choose. So when he sends a formal request for war funding, it really is a request, and he can't draft his own legislation without them, like he seems to think he can. Just last week he rammed home his choice for the US Ambassador to Belgium, Fox, who was basically pigeonholed by the Foreign Relations Committee, by bypassing the Congress entirely and appointing him with a loophole called 'recess appointments,' which were designed to fill critical positions during sometimes lengthy recesses the Congress can take. It's a bit of an anachronism from older days when travel was longer, as were breaks. It was never meant to be a way to slip past Congress a nominee that would never otherwise pass.

This president thinks he can do anything, and thinks Congress is just a noisy bunch of administrators sitting at America's kid's table, but they aren't. I hope Democrats stonewall him all the way to the very last minute, and maybe even beyond. Because this isn't just about the Iraq War, and it's not just about Democrats and Bush. This is about the shape of the US government, the Imperial Presidency, and checks & balances. This battle is important, and Congress has to win it, lest presidents think they can walk all over the Congress whenever they want. They sidestepped the issue of War Powers four years ago when Bush tried taking us to war without them, but they can't sidestep this one. Oversight and power of the purse aren't just their abilities, they are their duties. And it's high time they started taking them seriously and started doing the jobs we elected them to do.

Who Supports The Troops?

Troops are gathering and war is brewing. No I'm not talking about the war in Iraq, or the forgotten war in Aghanistan, I'm talking of course about the conflict between Congressional Democrats and the President. We're hearing a lot from the Republicans, and especially Bush lately about how Democrats are trying to "set a date for surrender" in the war in Iraq. Statements like that, and others, are being used to paint Democrats as unpatriotic and unfriendly to the troops. Democrats on the other hand are saying Bush is out of touch with what the people want.

Bush's popularity is at a near all time low, hanging around 33% with a 60% disapproval rating. A majority of Americans now feel the war was a mistake, and that same majority feel we'll never be able to stablize the country.

We need to ask ourselves some serious questions about this war, and about how this country gets itself into and prosecute wars. Who gets to define our goals? The President is setting our goal as complete safety in Iraq and a stable democracy. I thought our goal was to get their WMDs? Well we did that, they aren't there, so why are we? Okay, okay, so we upset their fragile balance, and we owe it to them to try and fix what we broke. Half a trillion dollars later, more than 3,000 dead later, hundreds of thousands of unhappy troops that are scarred for life after trying to help Iraq...and we have seemingly little to show for it.

So the Democrats want to bring the troops home, and Bush wants them to stay for what really is an unspecified period of time. All the while our ability to push and prod other dangerous areas of the world is severely hampered, our military hardware is falling apart, and our tab for the military is exploding out of control. It's time to consider America first, and get out of there. Our goals there have changed multiple times, and no matter how hard we've tried, we're unable to solve a centuries old conflict that dissident movements are intent on inflaming. So we leave. We never should have gone in the first place, and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be.

But I have to ask, who is to blame in this battle between the President and the Congress? Are the Democrats letting down the troops by not giving Bush carte blanche? Or is the President at fault for not bringing home the troops when the mission went south? Ultimately, the President has to look to the welfare of the nation. Bush felt that abandoning Afghanistan to terrorists was okay, in order to attack Iraq, so I wonder why leaving Iraq wouldn't be okay as well. Democrats still want to leave a force there to fight insurgents and to train Iraqis, but we can't hold their hands anymore. It's time to fly or fall for Iraq. Democrats want to bring the troops home, want to end the suffering, want to repair our image abroad. I think what they have in mind is best for our long term security, as opposed to Bush's half effort that is only meeting with marginal success.

The battle right now is over funding. Democrats want an order to recall troops mixed into the funding bill, Bush refuses to sign it and will veto. If Democrats keep sending him a bill with funds and he keeps vetoing it, and refuses to pull them out, then who is being irresponsible to the troops? The Democrats want to keep them funded, and then want to keep them safe and in America. Bush wants to keep them funded and in Iraq, and refuses to give ground. I say if the President refuses to act as a responsible chief by bringing home the troops when the well runs dry, then he is to blame. The bright side of a democracy is rule by the people, and it's time for him to listen.