Frustrating

The title describes my morning, which was spent on the phone with Microsoft folks. Windows Server 2003 has compatibility problems with certain HP printer drivers--ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Anyway, it also describes my feelings towards John Kerry's announcement on Monday that he'd vote again for the Iraq War resolution--even if he KNEW about the WMD canard and apparently the chaos that's defined the "post war" period (as if there really was or is a "post war" period in Iraq).

USATODAY, of all papers, does Kerry a minor favor when it says he's "been consistent about his nuances, at least," and there's a certain part his statement that, in my reading of it, seeks to justification on political grounds. For the braindead of the world, which seems to encompass the entire US press corps, Kerry's attempt to paint radical stripes, streaks, and even full color on one George W. Bush has been actively ignored.

The idea behind Kerry's assertion, and presumably his Monday remark, is to suggest that Bush has veered so far to the right that he's no longer acceptable to those hugging either side of the center line. The Senator will then seek to capture this part of the vote--which, along with the Democratic faithful and the A.B.B.'ers, should push him over the top. It's probably a good strategy.

However, the 2002 resolution itself is problematic. While I'm sure there was enough weaseling and nuance to pass muster vis-a-vis the Constitution, something about vesting the power to declare war in a SINGLE individual just isn't right. Sure, it's been more than fifty years since Truman adopted this particular power, setting the precedent, but the passage of time doesn't mean I can no longer argue against this. The fact that Kerry apparently stands IN FAVOR of the executive personally being granted this is one reason why I've maintained the position that his election will not be a panacea, but first and foremost a way to stop the hemorrhaging that began when Team Bush decided the country needed a little bloodletting and proceeded to slice open the carotid artery on the body politic.

Alexander Cockburn latches on to this in his Counterpunch essay. He follows up from a previous piece that argues along the lines that four more years of Bush might well be the straw that breaks the back of the American empire. Alas, I'm not able to agree with this line of reasoning, for many reasons, both selfish and not.

But I WILL vent some spleen on Kerry's position regarding executive power. In fact, I spent my lunch break in friendly argument with a colleague about the nature of the modern presidency, and how "commander-in-chief" is interpreted in light of the last fifty or so years, as well as the historic considerations of the terminology.

Senator Robert Byrd, interviewed on the radio program Fresh Air, dismissed the notion that "commander in chief" implies an ability of the civilian executive to send the troops on missions of conquest. He argues, rightly in my view, that the term simply limits the ability of the military to act on its own (and notes the term came into common usage during the English Civil War in the 17th Century). To further this argument, I'll suggest that by vesting in CONGRESS the power to declare war, the framers of the Constitution considered this a check on the Executive Branch of Government. In passing the Iraq resolution, Congress engaged, in my opinion, in an unconstitutional act.

I'm guessing the various hotshot lawyers and august statesmen of the recent past have argued this--likely with the equivalent of a wink and a nudge, and a casual if not caustic dismissal of such procedural concerns. But it is precisely these concerns that we should pay attention to, as once ONE element of the Consitution is ignored for reasons of expediency, then the rest of the document becomes little more than a talking point (which is what Bush and his supporters are trying to do with laws like the Patriot Act).

And, call me old-fashioned, but I think the Constitution, as written, is perfectly adequate for these times. Going to war should ALWAYS be debated, as this is the mostly costly undertaking a government makes. Sure, considering the level to which Congress allowed itself to be cowed into a de facto war resolution, it can be argued that a genuine declaration of war would have been just as quickly ramrodded through Congress. But there's always the possibility that the legislature would take seriously the prospect of mobilizing the troops, and might have argued for more time. Bush, if anyone recalls, was in the throes of war fever and could hardly wait to don his flightsuit (well, he wasn't THAT eager--he was more than willing to wait until the coast--of California--was clear). He also has pretty much ignored the deaths of US personnel and has COMPLETELY ignored the death of Iraqis, except for bragging a bit here and there (the latter doesn't surprise me at all). Congresspeople, though, are a little closer to their constituents. The prospect of having to actually justify a war of aggression to someone who's lost a child would have to resonate a little more.

Neither Kerry nor Bush--nor any president--should be given the power to "send the troops" on a whim. Some people argue that things move too fast these days to delegate this to Congress. With all due respect: Bullshit. Congress can move quickly if required--and besides, the logistics of troop movements overseas, which takes months, negates any necessity to "move quickly," because this just can't happen. The executive branch of government should recognize both its power--which is quite considerable--and its limits, which are there BECAUSE the framers recognized the danger of concentrating too much power in too few hands.

That's not quite the conclusion I wanted to make, by the way, but it will have to do. I've gotta get back to work here.