BCT Editorial – 4/13/07

This page was last updated on April 15, 2007.

Power failure; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 16, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President Bush still doesn’t get it.

“Bush wants Democrats to give him a war-funding bill regarding the occupation of Iraq that comes with no restrictions. The Democrats insist on a measure that includes timelines for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government to assume more responsibilities.

“As commander in chief, Bush has the power to use the military in ways that he sees fit to protect the nation and to wage war. That’s the reason we supported the current troop surge, even though we don’t believe it will be successful and have argued for troops to be withdrawn.”

[RWC] As I’ve written before, this is a cowardly and despicable position. Its purpose is to set up the Times to be “right” regardless of the outcome. Should we succeed, you can bet an editorial will crow about support for the surge. Should we fail, an editorial will say “we told you to surrender,” though probably not in those words. Despite this, you can bet the Times will claim it “supports the troops.”

“However, Bush’s refusal to meet with Democrats to negotiate some sort of compromise crosses the line. The terms with which he said he would meet with them are downright insulting, not just to Democrats but to our system of government.”

[RWC] I’m not sure where the Times gets its news, but President Bush didn’t refuse to meet with Democrats. Indeed, President Bush invited the Democrats to a meeting at the White House, though Democrats initially declined to attend.

“When Bush said he would not compromise on his demands on the war-spending bill, it was his standard my-way-or-the-highway, almost messianic approach to governing.”

[RWC] Seriously, folks, who other than the enemy and their allies in the U.S. believe setting a surrender schedule is a good idea?

I know the “my-way-or-the-highway, almost messianic approach” comment makes for nice reading, but the facts don’t support it. For example, President Bush has vetoed only one bill in six years. In another example, President Bush tapped Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) to help write the bogus No Child Left Behind Act. In another example, President Bush eventually agreed to support the Democrat idea of Homeland Security department. The examples go on.

“That might have worked when his GOP lap dogs controlled Congress, but November 2006 changed that. Whether Bush likes it or not, voters wanted accountability for the mess that Iraq has become.”

[RWC] Ah yes, nothing like name-calling to raise the level of discourse.

“They did so in last November’s general election by giving Democrats control of the House and Senate for the first time since 1993. Make no mistake. The administration’s bungled occupation of Iraq was the No. 1 issue for those voters.”

[RWC] I know I’m nitpicking, but Democrats held the majority in the Senate from May 2001 to January 2003.

“By snubbing Congress, Bush and his followers fail to realize that the executive branch is merely one of three co-equal branches of government. Congress and the federal judiciary have constitutional duties and obligations that are just as important and paramount as the executive branch.

“So when Democrats meet with Bush, they will be doing so as representatives of the American people as expressed in the results of November’s elections. Therefore, when Bush says he will not listen to members of Congress, he is saying that he won’t listen to the American people.”

[RWC] Two points. First, the “American people” reelected President Bush in 2004. Therefore, he too is a “representative of the American people” and he received millions of votes more than all the Democrats in Congress combined. Second, Democrats have only a very slim majority in both houses of Congress. The landslide the Times would like us to believe took place in the 2006 elections didn’t happen. For example, even after buying $24 billion dollars worth of Democrat votes for the House version of the “war-funding bill,” it passed with only 218 votes, the absolute minimum assuming every representative voted. Funny how the editorial failed to note that fact, isn’t it?

“The hands of the commander in chief should not be needlessly restricted. That assumes, however, that the person is [sic] charge is acting in the best interests of the American people.”

[RWC] What the editorial author really wanted to write was, “That assumes, however, that the person in charge is a Democrat.”

“That assumption is no longer operative in regard to Bush and the occupation of Iraq.

“His open-ended ‘when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down’ approach isn’t working, and not just in Iraq. The American people aren’t buying it either. That’s one reason his poll numbers are so low.”

[RWC] Gee, I wonder if the relentless assault by the media for more than four years has had an effect?

Can the Times name a war we’ve been in that hasn’t been “open-ended?” For example, were surrender schedules published for the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, World War II, et cetera?

“Bush fails to recognize that for the majority of Americans his credibility in regard to Iraq is shot. The American people can see that a first-class military organization is being ground down because of this president’s mistakes and stubbornness.”

[RWC] All right, the obligatory and timeworn “a first-class military organization is being ground down” or ground up comment. It’s not really a Times anti-Bush/Iraq editorial without this statement. This claim goes back at least to April 2004, after only about a year in Iraq.

“Congress must step in to fill the leadership void before it is too late and our military is irrevocably broken.”

[RWC] My copy of the Constitution provides for only one “Commander in Chief” (Article II, Section 2).