Happy Monday! A new work week, a time to get something done after the weekend. How about a beer?
Apparently, Chucky Hagel has been imbiding a wee bit too much in alchoholic beverages as of late, or something else which should get him drug tested. He has already made himself the focus of TB Friday featuring the Surrender Monkey once, as well as supplementary SM posts, now we get this again (h/t Beth at MVRWC)
WASHINGTON — Senator Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska who is predicting that President Bush will face calls for impeachment if he ignores Congress on the war, will introduce binding legislation this week to begin the withdrawal of soldiers from Iraq.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Mr. Hagel said he would introduce a binding resolution this week "focused on redeployment, training and equipment." Mr. Hagel's co-sponsor for the new Iraq resolution is Senator Webb, a Democrat of Virginia who has introduced legislation in the Senate to prevent the president from taking any military action against Iran and who won his election to his first term in the Senate last November by running on an anti-war platform. Mr. Webb, who served in the Reagan administration as the secretary of the Navy, has emerged as a favorite of the Democratic online group, MoveOn.org.
And this guy wants to be the presidential nominee for the GOP? Never going to happen. He even uses the Defeatocrats own words while working with a favorite of (never)MoveOn.
Mr. Hagel yesterday said he was particularly angry about the president's reaction to the House passage of the Iraq supplemental budget, which the president said in his radio address this weekend he would veto if it crossed his desk. That bill gives the White House $24 billion more than it asked for to fund the troop surge in Baghdad and Anbar, but it also mandates a timeline and a cut off of war funding after August 31, 2008.
I guess Hagel is a bit worried that his part in adding pork to any Senate bill will be dashed.
He was also complaining about Bush being a "monarch," and refusing to give Congress a role in Iraq, as well as limiting their oversight. First, Congress has played their Constitutional part. They voted for the war, and they get to vote for funding. That is their part.
Second, I am wondering if anyone can point out the specific part of the Constitution which gives Congress the oversight that Hagel and the Democrats want. I can't find it. I see parts which give separation of powers, but not oversight such as what Hagel and the Dems want. There are certainly parts such as the ability to have the Justice Department raid the office of a dirty Congressman (didn't Hagel have a fit over that?). And the President can veto bad legislation, Congress can refuse to fund what the Executive Branch wants, and the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional laws. Otherwise, I am missing the part where Congress plays a role in managing military field operations.
Captain Ed is asking if Hagel has actually read the Constitution. That would be a big no. Bush probably didn’t let him. 😉
Send a trackback to this post, but don't forget to link it.