A co-worker sent me a link to what he deemed a “Great Rant” and I went ahead and read it. It’s a great rant in the same manner that Howard Dean’s opposition to President Bush was “Great Leadership and Politicing” I think. The poster of the supposedly great rant is angry, and feels that anger and spewing is equivalent to offering anything worth reading or listening to. Complaining vehemently about the Democrats plans for preventing the Iraqi was surge plan, the writer vomits:
You Democrats, with far too few exceptions, are a disgrace to the sacrifices made by our forefathers, and you have no business referring to yourselves as Americans. Since when is it the Congress’s mandate to run foreign policy, anyway?
If I’m getting my dates right, I believe the US Constitution was penned in 1789. And in the Constitution, we can find that “The Congress shall have Power…
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raid and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Nacy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
So in regards to Congressional involvement in a war, it certainly looks like the answer to “Since when is it the Congress’s mandate to run foreign policy, anyway?” would be 1789.
I write this as someone who supports President Bush’s troop surge plan. I do believe the only 2 options for Iraq are more troops or complete withdrawal. We don’t have enough feet on the ground to improve Iraq, so more troops are a very wise decision. There is, however, evidence that much of the violence is opposing parties within the region targetting each other more so than terrorist attacks against US troops, so I believe it is valid to try to remove all troops (I don’t think that is the right decision, but I do believe it is a valid decision to argue for). I think it is the duty of our Congress-critters to have this debate. Those opposed to the debate are showing poor US citizenship. Opposing one side of the debate or the other is great, but just ranting is worthless. Oppose the tone of the debate. Speak out on what you believe should or should not be done.
Instead of any of that, though, the poster here seems to use the current Congressional debate as an excuse to vent against Democrats. He fails to target the Republicans who are in agreement here. And why is that? Because he wants to make sure people see how much he hates the opposing party, rather than saying something meaningful about all the politicians in this debate who are opposed to more troops. Like Howard Dean made a spectacle of showing how anti-President Bush he was instead of sticking to valid criticism of the President.
Bleh. I’m so tired of the ranters on either side. Hate from the right. Lunacy from the left. What ever happened to intelligent debate? For intelligent commentary, I’m going more often to Michelle Malkin and Victoria Kos, and finding less and less of the political blogosphere worth visiting.
[tags]Stupid rant, Anti-party hate isn’t great ranting[/tags]