WASHINGTON -- Wherever they are I hope the authors of our Constitution are pondering the spectacle now bedazzling Capitol Hill. In the admirable governing document that the Founding Fathers fashioned they made the president "Commander-in Chief" of our military. Yet, according to the novel reading of the newly elected Democratic majority, the Founding Fathers denied the president the instrumentalities to be commander-in-chief. For more than two centuries, through wars large and small, American presidents have been equipping armies, deciding strategy and sending those armies into battle. Now, however, along come the Hon. Nancy Pelosi, the Hon. Harry Reid and the incomparable Hon. John P. Murtha with their exegesis of the Constitution.
Past presidents were in error. They acted unconstitutionally when they in their impertinence had their generals and admirals train and equip our forces. Those duties, according to this trinity of fantasists, were to be left to committees on Capitol Hill, even committees dominated by a president's opponents. Thus Speaker of the House Pelosi has charged Murtha to divine the conditions under which reinforcements will fight in Iraq. The Democrats approved of putting Lt. Gen. David Petraeus in charge of coalition forces in Iraq, but they do not approve of his strategy of "surge." Thus he will apparently have to sit tight until Murtha, an opponent of the war, decides how his troops will be armed and trained.
Does this sound a bit fla fla? Has any war ever been fought this way? What are the Democrats thinking? They are thinking of more electoral victories in 2008. If they can effectively hamstring our efforts in Iraq, they somehow think the American electorate will blame the whole thing on the Republicans. The worse the sectarian violence becomes, the better for Democratic prospects. The more Iraq descends into anarchy, the more likely the American people will whoop it up for the political party that, as the Washington Post has put it, linked "support for President Bush's war-funding request to strict standards of resting, training and equipping combat forces."
You might recall in the aftermath of 9/11, as we drove the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, serious observers of world events such as the British historian Niall Ferguson questioned American resolve. Ferguson seemed to believe that in light of this new threat of international terror originating from the Middle East's rogue states, the United States would demonstrate the resolve to overcome this new threat to the democracies.
Well, Professor Ferguson, you underestimated the partisan nature of contemporary American politics. So eager for high office are the Democrats that they would endanger our war effort to gain political advantage. They voted for war in 2002. They sneered at the handful of anti-war activists led by the likes of Professor Noam Chomsky who opposed it. Then they suffered the disturbing sense that their support of wartime president George W. Bush marginalized them and helped him in his 2004 reelection bid. All of a sudden, they fabricated a complaint, to wit, "Bush lied to us about WMDs."
President George W. Bush is in a difficult situation in Iraq. Yet from the looks of it he will be saved, if not by Petraeus then by the Democrats' shameful political tactics in time of war.