I'm not going to respond to posts at TAP in the form of a comment. I've already been called unreasonable by Andrew White and yet I maintain a high standard of not personally attacking anbody. Sometimes I chide, but typically I just disagree on principle and attack faulty logic. Knowing that my own traffic at this site is still significant I'll maintain the illusion of an audience and throw out some criticism of the current Congressperson. 
As 'devtob' seeks to play KG as this super special representative, this is what I would have asked in West Sand Lake yesterday if not for both children being very sick (this should deflect the call for me to ask her myself rather then my own special place on the net).
1. Would you support the initiation of the War Powers Act instead of a toothless non-binding resolution ?2. If an attack on Iran is imminent will you tell your constituency in advance at the risk of being accused of compromising 'national security ?
3. Do you feel that a Declaration of War is required to invade and occupy another country ?
Preferring a simple Yes or No, I'll just speculate on the answers that would be given.
1. I've always supported the troops and I won't advocate anything that threatens their security.The resolution was about not supporting a troop increase, not whether we should be doing everything possible the troops already there and their return home.
Obviously my purpose in such a question is cast scorn on the idea that the non-binding resolution is anything but political show. If the War Powers Act can do it, why not try ? This is a horrifying prospect for a representative who needs to please Republicans and veterans in order to be re-elected. The Blue Dog Dilemma on Principle.
2. If this country has to engage a threat from Iran, I support the decision of the commander in chief in the country's time of need. The voters of the 20th District in NY have a representative in Congress who would never betray their security interests.
The average CongressCritter would never violate such an unwritten rule of behavior that would risk their future success. This was the tragedy of this last invasion. Very few could critically adjust to the idea that manipulation and lies from the great noble office of the Presidency is possible during the country's crisis.
3. Sometimes Congress has to authorize the commander in chief to under take action in order to protect our national and security interests. I don't think President Bush has the same situation in Iran. Do I think that there are needs and opportunities to engage in a diplomatic possibilities ? Yes I think it's time to engage those avenues for the stability of the entire region.
In other words, of course we won't 'declare war' that would endanger the power of a Democratic POTUS. I would never do that to Hillary's ambition and favor. Us lawyers have to stick together, it's just an issue of power and it's better served in our hands. Only lawyers can manipulate an entire thought system and maintain control like this. Nobody can touch us except the other side. You never have to explain or define national or security interests, simply repeat it often enough.
Leave a comment