The looming showdown over the funding of U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is dragging into the light of day some time-tested, specious arguments about how the relationship bewteen the legislative and executive branches is constructed.
The President continues to state that Congress ought to just send him a "bill I can sign." Come again? The responsibility of the United States Congress is to draft legislation that is responsive to their constituents wishes without regard for the President's preference. If Congress were to tailor its legislation to reflect the desires of the President rather than those of the citizenry, I fail to see the continuing need for a legislative branch. The balance of powers is intended to place checks upon the various branches of our government. There is no check if the legislative branch only sends bills that the President desires.
Another false premise that is being offered to the American public as fact is that a stated, planned withdrawal of troops allows our enemies (whoever they may be) to "mark their calendars and plan their takeover" accordingly. The insurgents ARE simply waiting until we leave to make their move -- this is true whether they know exactly when we are leaving or not. The fact that a timetable would make the date of our withdrawal public changes this fact not one iota. What does change once a timetable is introduced, is the amount of pressure exerted upon the Iraqi government and other interested parties (Arab regimes, NGO's, etc.) to get their ducks in a row. Without a timetable for withdrawal, America is left holding the bag for this quagmire indefinitely and earning all the international hatred that comes with being an uninvited occupying force. A lack of a timetable also further erodes domestic support and puts additional strain upon our troops.
Finally, Vice President Cheney dragged out the tired, old argument today that by sending an "unacceptable" bill to the President, the Congress is underrmining the troops. Our Constitution demands that the Congress spend money in accordance with the wishes of the American people. That is what they are doing. If the President vetoes the bill -- as is certainly his right -- then it is he who is responsible for whatever fallout may occur. If the President wants a different bill, then it is incumbent upon him to work to change the wishes of the American people. Failing that, he can either sign the legislation or, standing on principle, veto it. In either case, it is the President who must bear the ultimate responsibility.
Oh yeah, and by the way, unless the plan is to remain in Iraq forever, then how is planning our departure a failure?
Let's just hope that the American people have the insight and information to see through this shell game and remember the basic civics that they were taught in school. Too bad the President seems to have forgotten.
