Monday, January 29, 2007

Brief question

Does anyone else see the irony of a "president" who, despite the will of the people and of congress, proceeds forward with his plan to force democracy down another country's throat? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


Jim said...

Without interjecting my personal opinions on the Iraq war, or on Bush's troop increase plan, I will point out only three things.

(1) The president, not Congress, controls the foreign policy of the USA, and that is enshrined in the Constitution.

(2) If the prosecution of every war this country has fought was linked to the "Feelings" of the general populous, this country likely would have been overrun by now.

(3) Why not put some blame on Congress? These non-binding resolutions serve no purpose other than to discourage the troops and *maybe* embolden the enemy. If Congress is so righteous, they ought to put their money where their mouth is and deny funding.

Now, a personal opinion. I wont say whether I agree or disagree with Bush's plan, but I will say this: I find it refreshing that SOMEONE is Washington is willing to do what they believe in, instead of pandering to the popular vote. I'm sick of our country being run as one giant political campaign. Like Bush or hate him, you have to admit he manages to rise above the fray a bit.

Courtney said...

I disagree with your second point. If I recall, in WWII young men were lying about their ages in order to be eligible to serve in the war. The populace has clearly supported military actions before.

I do put some blame on a namby-pamby Congress, but the president currently feels that it doesn't matter what congress thinks because he doesn't need their permission to do anything. And no, I don't find it refreshing that someone is willing to do what THEY believe in. The country is supposed to be governed on the basis of the will of the people, not how one person feels.

Staci said...

>If Congress is so righteous, they ought to put their money where their mouth is and deny funding.<

I read somewhere that Bush was questioned with this possibility, and he asked back how the Congress could send troops without proper equipment in good conscience (i.e. he would STILL send them even without funding or necessary supplies). I think that alone brings his "beliefs" to the level of being totally irrational.