Rachel Maddow Op/Ed in WaPost: Congress, If You're Talking About Iraq, You're Talking About Vietnam
@maddow: Rare bipartisan agreement! On something wrong. Argh. Just posted at WaPo: http://t.co/wM7uIUkKcv/s/YRyE
m.twitter.com/maddow
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-maddow-congress-should-make-itself-heard-about-us-troops-in-iraq/2014/06/22/9853dd96-f8b2-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html
BY RACHEL MADDOW June 22 at 6:56 PM
- snip -
In a remarkable confrontation on April 14, 1975...
Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R-N.Y.) told the president, “I will give you large sums for evacuation, but not one nickel for military aid.” Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) warned, “This raises the specter of a new war, thousands of American troops holding on in an enclave for a long period.” First-term Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said, “I will vote for any amount for getting the Americans out,” but he insisted that money for evacuation and military aid for the South Vietnamese government “are totally different.”
Part of the reason there had been such broad and intense domestic opposition to the war in Vietnam was its sense of strategic futility. We sent hundreds of thousands of Americans into that conflict, backed by the greatest firepower in the world and a willingness to use tactics that shocked our national conscience. But it wasn’t enough, and year after grinding year, it became apparent that nothing was going to be enough.
- snip -
Two and a half years after U.S. troops left Iraq, as we have watched Fallujah, Mosul and a swath of additional territory fall to Sunni militants, we are in need of such a debate. That is why it has been maddening to the point of distraction to see the media seek out supposedly expert analysis from people who made bad predictions and false declarations about the Iraq invasion in 2003. Whether they are humbled by their own mistakes or not, it is our civic responsibility to ensure that a history of misstatements and misjudgments has consequences for a person’s credibility in our national discourse.
On Capitol Hill, it’s even worse. After meeting with President Obama last week, congressional leaders emerged in rare bipartisan agreement: All said the president would need no further authorization from Congress for new U.S. military intervention in Iraq. They may agree on that, but they’re wrong: Neither the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force nor the 2002 Iraq war authorization obviously apply in this instance.
Obama is right to insist that he will continue “close consultation” with Congress on Iraq going forward, but Congress and the president are both wrong if they think that that consultation consists of Congress being told and not asked what should happen next. Whether we believe the Founding Fathers were right or not to give the responsibility for war and peace to the clamorous Congress, they did. It is an irresponsible constitutional cop-out to pretend they didn’t.
MORE
= new reply since forum marked as read
