Posted by
Jefferson on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:22:08 PM
Stuart Rothenberg has an
article today (20 Feb) on Real Clear Politics describing the House Democrats efforts to frame the recent anti-surge vote as "bi-partisan." I generally consider (in hindsight, I wasn't intelligent enough before hand) the Iraq action a fool's errand. But there are strategic implications, both good and bad, of this action that we will not know of for decades. And, applying the theory of constraints one could easily conclude that the U.S. military fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq prevents the terrorists from applying their resources to actions outside of Iraq (like inside the United States).
The article and the rhetoric highlight a deeper and more disturbing problem in our government. This wicked notion of "bi-partisanship." Political philosophy runs along a broad spectrum in this country and there certainly are more than two political parties to choose from. However, the electoral money is vested in the two parties so the smaller organizations never get the kind of attention and exposure that might help them to grow. This brings me back to a broader point. The unconstitutional declaration of war on Iraq. I know I have lost some of you here but bear with me. The Congress voted on an authorization to use force in Iraq, and some high profile radio hosts have dismissed this argument as overly technical. However, if George Bush had received an actual declaration of war from the Congress none of them could now call this "George Bush's war." If instead each individual member of Congress had been forced to vote yes or no on the declaration of war and not on a presidential authorization they could not hide behind the president's coattails.