History Repeating

Anyone remember back in the '04 elections when Kerry made this famous statement:

I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

Well it seems that now as the Commander in Chief (who is the President and NOT Congress), wishes to send additional troops to aid Iraq, the Democratic lead Congress is forcing a gamble on the President by stating in not so many words that they will not fund additional forces. From Breitbart today, presidential hopeful Obama gave us some insight into their rational:

"We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.

and from Ted Kennedy:

Kennedy said he would introduce legislation that would "prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States Forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007," unless and until Congress approves the president's plan.

He is also trying to impose legislation that would in effect change the constitution

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

by forcing the President to run everything concerned with leading the war effort through Congress first stating:

If enacted into law, the bill would "reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq," he said.

"As the election in November made clear, the vast majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, and an even greater number oppose sending even more troops to Iraq today," Kennedy said.

"We campaigned as Democrats in 2006, and we must govern as Democrats in 2007," he added. "We have the solemn obligation now to show the American people that we heard their voices.

"The president is commander-in-chief, but in our democracy, he is still accountable to the people. Our system of checks and balances gives Congress - as the elected representatives of the people - a central role in decisions on war and peace," Kennedy said.

Why do we need this legislation when the constitution already gives Congress full checks and balances over the president by with holding funds. And as for the American people having a say so over this war, people tend to forget that we do not live in a democracy, rather a republic. We have elected the President to lead us and the troops. He does not need to run everything by us or Congress (only the asking of more funds every two years). The American people spoke when we elected him as president and they will speak again in 2008. Until then, he needs to lead unfettered. The problem with the Congress question is that the constitution goes on to state that:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

So the President, as he is doing now, has to go before Congress and ask for additional funds. Will they give up the funds and enable us to succeed? We will soon see. I truly believe that this is nothing more than a political stunt.