DEMOCRATS AND THE STRATEGY OF SLOW SURRENDER - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
"Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
"Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled"
Quoted from; Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq October 2, 2002
Voting from a united Congress Democrats and Republicans with few exceptions voted in 2002 to authorize the use of United States forces in Iraq. What is little mentioned concerning this resolution is that along with the much reported, "flawed," intelligence that Democrats are backing away from in order to oppose the war, the resolution stated concerning terrorism and September 11....
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations" These are the words of The United States Congress not President Bush.
Fast forward to the current Congress and the move underway by Democrats to revise the 2002 resolution to slowly bleed the armed forces in Iraq with the eventual goal of removal without completing the mission or the preparation of Iraqi Security Forces. The revision will limit or eliminate reinforcements which includes replacement forces for those deployed home, close necessary bases, limit shipment of weaponry and ammunition and tie the hands of the President and military commanders to prosecute the war with the Congress not the President being the deciding factor concerning deployment and strategy.
While this revision will weaken the United States because of its blatant plan by Democrats to slowly bleed Iraq of US presence and in the meantime place our soldiers in a more dangerous situation because of hampering of supplies, funding and reinforcements does it stand the Constitutional test ?
The United States Constitution states that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces and when those forces are in, "actual service, " he is the civilian responsibility for the manner and deployment of forces as part of his duty to, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Congress does not share in this responsibility nor are they Constitutionally part of the command of any of the armed forces. Command decisions include all strategies, deployment, replacement of troops and reinforcing of troops and supplying of troops as deemed necessary to protect the country and the troops.
The sole responsibility of Congress concerning the military is for the provision and maintenance of the military. This includes regulations, recruitment, discipline and arming. Or as the Constitution states, " To Raise and support Armies."
With the current revision being proposed by Democrats they are attempting to usurp their Constitutional authority of provision and maintenance of the military. Democrats are moving to become associate Commanders in Chiefs while limiting the command capabilities of the only Constitutional Commander in Chief; the President.
With history as a reference this move by the Congress would be comparable to a revistionist scenario after the D Day invasion. After the success of D Day the allied forces began moving inland and ran into extremely stiff German opposition in what is known a the French hedge row country. An area that is dominated by row after row of thick brush that made advancement next to impossible and provided the enemy with ample protection and fortification.
Forces were advancing at times only yards each day. Eisenhower under the direction of FDR created Operation Cobra in which the third Army under the command of General George Patton would do an end run around enemy forces to draw them from the hedge row country. Patton would use this move to march across southern Europe and eventually break the German forces which was a key strategy to victory.
This move required Presidential Command approval for the appointment of Patton as third Army commander and the deployment and supply of this Army. If Congress had made a similar move then as they are today in , "revising, " the 1941 declaration of war because of the bogging down of forces in the French hedge row country after D Day and US loses that were high, they would have eliminated the deployment of third Army, the supply of same and the appointment of Patton as its commander. WWII would have had a decidedly different out come without Operation Cobra.
This move by Democrats is designed despite their rhetoric to the contrary to slowly surrender US forces in the Iraq theatre. This move if allowed to find full implementation will slowly bleed US forces of personnel, material, hamper any strategy and essentially remove command and control of forces from the President and military commanders to the United States Congress and its current leadership. Which is a direct violation of the Constitution.
This, "revision, " of defeat will weaken United States national security. The enemy will see this as an opportunity to strengthen their resolve and increase their attacks against a weakened military. If fully implemented Iraq will become a haven of terrorist groups and the Iraqi people will become their fanatical Islamic slaves. Our troops will be placed in situations in which they will not have the forces or material to fight effectively and to protect themselves to the fullest extent possible. And ultimately the people of The United States will be less safe and more vulnerable to an enemy whose only goal is our destruction and the death of each of us, even defeatist Democrats!
Ken Taylor
"Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled"
Quoted from; Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq October 2, 2002
Voting from a united Congress Democrats and Republicans with few exceptions voted in 2002 to authorize the use of United States forces in Iraq. What is little mentioned concerning this resolution is that along with the much reported, "flawed," intelligence that Democrats are backing away from in order to oppose the war, the resolution stated concerning terrorism and September 11....
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations" These are the words of The United States Congress not President Bush.
Fast forward to the current Congress and the move underway by Democrats to revise the 2002 resolution to slowly bleed the armed forces in Iraq with the eventual goal of removal without completing the mission or the preparation of Iraqi Security Forces. The revision will limit or eliminate reinforcements which includes replacement forces for those deployed home, close necessary bases, limit shipment of weaponry and ammunition and tie the hands of the President and military commanders to prosecute the war with the Congress not the President being the deciding factor concerning deployment and strategy.
While this revision will weaken the United States because of its blatant plan by Democrats to slowly bleed Iraq of US presence and in the meantime place our soldiers in a more dangerous situation because of hampering of supplies, funding and reinforcements does it stand the Constitutional test ?
The United States Constitution states that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces and when those forces are in, "actual service, " he is the civilian responsibility for the manner and deployment of forces as part of his duty to, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Congress does not share in this responsibility nor are they Constitutionally part of the command of any of the armed forces. Command decisions include all strategies, deployment, replacement of troops and reinforcing of troops and supplying of troops as deemed necessary to protect the country and the troops.
The sole responsibility of Congress concerning the military is for the provision and maintenance of the military. This includes regulations, recruitment, discipline and arming. Or as the Constitution states, " To Raise and support Armies."
With the current revision being proposed by Democrats they are attempting to usurp their Constitutional authority of provision and maintenance of the military. Democrats are moving to become associate Commanders in Chiefs while limiting the command capabilities of the only Constitutional Commander in Chief; the President.
With history as a reference this move by the Congress would be comparable to a revistionist scenario after the D Day invasion. After the success of D Day the allied forces began moving inland and ran into extremely stiff German opposition in what is known a the French hedge row country. An area that is dominated by row after row of thick brush that made advancement next to impossible and provided the enemy with ample protection and fortification.
Forces were advancing at times only yards each day. Eisenhower under the direction of FDR created Operation Cobra in which the third Army under the command of General George Patton would do an end run around enemy forces to draw them from the hedge row country. Patton would use this move to march across southern Europe and eventually break the German forces which was a key strategy to victory.
This move required Presidential Command approval for the appointment of Patton as third Army commander and the deployment and supply of this Army. If Congress had made a similar move then as they are today in , "revising, " the 1941 declaration of war because of the bogging down of forces in the French hedge row country after D Day and US loses that were high, they would have eliminated the deployment of third Army, the supply of same and the appointment of Patton as its commander. WWII would have had a decidedly different out come without Operation Cobra.
This move by Democrats is designed despite their rhetoric to the contrary to slowly surrender US forces in the Iraq theatre. This move if allowed to find full implementation will slowly bleed US forces of personnel, material, hamper any strategy and essentially remove command and control of forces from the President and military commanders to the United States Congress and its current leadership. Which is a direct violation of the Constitution.
This, "revision, " of defeat will weaken United States national security. The enemy will see this as an opportunity to strengthen their resolve and increase their attacks against a weakened military. If fully implemented Iraq will become a haven of terrorist groups and the Iraqi people will become their fanatical Islamic slaves. Our troops will be placed in situations in which they will not have the forces or material to fight effectively and to protect themselves to the fullest extent possible. And ultimately the people of The United States will be less safe and more vulnerable to an enemy whose only goal is our destruction and the death of each of us, even defeatist Democrats!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:21 AM
4 Comments:
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) describes Democrat policy this way: "we’re trying to tie the hands of the president."
They want to "tie the hands" of the charged with the Constitutional responsiblity to protect the lives of Americans during a time of war.
Incredible! Disgusting!
What a bunch of idiots!
Is this what voters wanted?
Do the American people REALLY want to lose this war in Iraq and fight it in US cities instead?
Excellent, Ken.
Mike asks if the American people REALLY want to lose this war in Iraq and fight it in US cities instead? I don't think they do; I believe they think it's not going to happen. Many Americans still don't believe it even could happen. It's denial on an unbelievably large scale, and unless we can get through to them they will be the downfall of all of us.
It's the Bushies who are bleeding us slowly.
The dissapeared?
Post a Comment
<< Home