Often Speechless
It’s ironic that, several months after starting this blog with the express purpose of allowing me to vent my thoughts and frustrations on political and global issues, I find myself so overflowing with things to write that I end up writing nothing at all. (And, yes, that is my excuse for not posting much here in the last couple of weeks).
I’ve spent more time in the last few weeks reading up on politics and keeping up with the latest news than I have in many years. I check several of the political blogs listed on the front page of this site many times a day (most often Daily Kos and Huffington Post), and I watch a lot of Jon Stewart (when I need to laugh) and Bill O’Reilly (when I need to get pissed off). But my characteristic ability to mouth off freely about politics is stunted. I have too much to say, and I don’t know what to say first, and sometimes it’s easier to just talk about books instead of “dwelling in the real”.
I’m sure this won’t be a permanent condition, though. The upcoming USA midterm elections have many people on edge (witness the hysterical tones of every political blog, television news show and newspaper these days), and I certainly can’t remember ever feeling like so much was at stake in an non-Presidential USA election. I believe our current Iraq policy is a disaster, and I do not believe our President or Vice-President have the courage to admit their mistakes. Thus, we need to elect a Congress and a Senate that can take decision-making power away from the Executive branch, and this is why November 7 is so important. I will not be able to rest easy until I am sure that George W. Bush will spend his last two years as a lame duck.
Let’s say the Democrats do take the House and the Senate — what next? Well, first of all, impeachment proceedings can wait, and may not even be worth the trouble and the distraction. Instead, I want the new Congress and Senate to quickly pass legislation withdrawing past Congressional support for our current Iraq war, and to set a firm timetable for the fastest exit possible. I’d then hope for the beginning of a new kind of battle, which we can call a Diplomatic War (because the United States electorate really does love war, so let’s call it a war) to build an international coalition that can continue to work with the moderates in Iraq and contain damages to the best possible degree. Our current administration has gotten an F in diplomacy from day one, so the new Congress and Senate will have to work hard to establish new diplomatic channels that do not fall under the influence of the Executive office.
I pray that we wake up on Wednesday, November 8 and discover that we have elected a new government of the United States of America.
I used to hope for things like world peace. My expectations have been battered lately; the most I can hope for right now is a fresh start. Hmm, five days away …
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:22 am
Enough with the excuses already … every day is a fresh start and an opportunity to actually … yes… do something, whether votes go your way or not.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
One of the horrors of the Lewinsky-Clinton impeachment, was the sight of Tom Delay and Dick Armey holding an impromptu news conference. The context of their flailing incompetence was that Clinton had lost his authority to conduct foreign policy. This because of his willingness to work with the Palestinian Authority. Delay was waving around a newspaper - The Jerusalem Times - which reported that the PLO was smuggling in weapons from Arab neighbors. He was outraged, red in the face - he even quoted Hilary as suggesting that there would one day be a separate Palestinian state! (Apparently that’s not in the Bible.)
What struck me as uniquely pathetic about the whole ordeal was that Congressmen have no Constitutional authority to directly involve themselves in foreign policy - that is the province of the Executive. To even attempt this, borders on treason - an effort to overturn the Constitutional authority of the US government. People should be aware of this when they vote for a president. Morons like Reagan and Bush, get to decide our planet-wide policies. They don’t just cut federal taxes - causing states and municipalities to raise their taxes to make up for the shortfall.
The only thing a new Congress can do is - control the money. Congress has the authority to decide how tax dollars are spent, i.e., to fund a useless war or not. And traditionally Congressmen have no spine. They won’t demand a balanced budget wherein monies wasted on war would have to come from cuts in Social Security or Medicare. Nor will they reform Congress by ending the contemptible practice of running the nation through elitist Committee Chairmanships.
On the bright side, a Democratic Congress will halt the Nazi-style authoritarianism of the current Executive; which I think is a far more serious issue than our current Vietnam-like war. Good people are willing to die for Bush/Cheney in this war - that is a personal choice that their children will have to live with. Or as Sgt. Dudley told me when we were stationed in Italy - when the Russians attack, my ass is heading for the hills.
(Just an aside - to focus your thoughts on US politics, check out how our government works - via firstgov.org.)
November 4th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Brilliant insight and analysis is as worthwhile as the number of people it reaches. So why not put all the cherryorchard posts at Kos? People need this info, this opinion, this discussion. It has value. By dually posting both here and at Kos, it broadens the scope of viewership. That’s the key - not just having meaningful things to say, but having people hear or read them. Jeez, Greg Palast made some little critique of the war yesterday, and hundreds of people chimed in.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Well, first of all, impeachment proceedings can wait, and may not even be worth the trouble and the distraction.
You write as though an impeachment conviction were even a theoretical possibility. Consider: Article I of the Constitution: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
2/3 of the Senate is 67. Democrats now number 51 in that chamber. What other possible Senators could comprise that number?
Also: article II states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It’s not a parliamentary vote of no confidence. It calls for criminal charges, like treason, perjury, obstruction of justice, accepting bribes, etc.
“Instead, I want the new Congress and Senate to quickly pass legislation withdrawing past Congressional support for our current Iraq war, and to set a firm timetable for the fastest exit possible.” As one of your commenters writes, the “support” you mention is the first clause is financial. Congress can cut off funding. They can’t “set a firm timetable” or otherwise command the army (although they could effectively defund the war whenever they want).
“The new Congress and Senate will have to work hard to establish new diplomatic channels that do not fall under the influence of the Executive office.” Congress can open whatever channels they want. Those channels don’t constitute U. S. foreign policy. The Constitution explicitly grants the Executive control of the military and vests it with the responsibility for receiving foreign ambassadors. Aside from the ability to declare war, I see no Constitutional mandate for Congress conducting U.S. foreign policy. Do you?
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 am
Jim, I agree that there is no constitutional logic to what I wrote. I was really just “riffing”. I was very excited at the thought that America might vote the rubber-stamp Congress out, and I was just fantasizing about a house-cleaning of the executive branch.
As you say, the Legislative branch does not run foreign policy and can only influence it indirectly. A more rational explanation of what I’m saying above is that I hope the new Congress and Senate will do everything they can to influence new approaches to the war in Iraq.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
I’m sure that Congress will do try influence conduct of the war. That they will do so wisely is highly unlikely, considering that the incoming Speaker’s (now, fortunately, defeated) choice for majority leader, Jack Murtha, somehow thinks a redeployment to Okinawa and Guam is an intelligent “new approach.”
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Well, Jim, I think everybody agrees (even Murtha) that both parties need to work together to save this situation. Let’s just hope for flexibility and cooperation on both sides — that’s what I think. I’m planning to post another article very soon (maybe tonite) that spells out what I think our next steps should be.