The Real Leaders of 2005

Click on the picture for a larger view.



The ray of hope that reason and truth will prevail in the USA.

Is Bush, Jr. Demanding More Oversight?

Does Bush realize the reasoning of his latest attacks on his critics justifies a stronger War Powers Resolution, possibly requiring a constitutional amendment?

The fog is lifting and more people are now ready to hear other people frame the arguments besides the White House Administration when it comes to judging the decision to go to war with Iraq. However, even with Bush's latest arguments against his critics and alleged rewriters of history, one can take his logic and draw a conclusion that was not intended by the President. Or if he did intend this conclusion, then he is now advocating a position not held by past presidents. The conclusion is that he is transferring or abdicating authority to congress in the area of deploying military personnel that does not require a declaration of war. This has been an area of some debate over many decades with the Supreme court mostly siding with the executive branch in that congress cannot enforce the War Powers resolution. In practice, the president has respected some of the principles of this resolution by keeping congress informed and consulted, but the position has been that the authority and thereby the responsibility lies mostly with the executive branch.

With Bush's current arguments (also echoed by Secretary Rumsfield of the DoD), an assertion is being made that there are two non-debatable premises as to why senators must accept the decision to go to war with Iraq (and share the responsibility):

1. It was the same intelligence on Iraq shared with both Senators and past administrations, and the consensus has been that Saddam is a significant WMD threat. The conclusion that Bush wants to imply (but is not justified) is that Clinton and others would have (or at least should have) made the same decisions that he has, if they had to confront the 9-11 attacks.
2. Those senators who voted for the war used the same intelligence that he used and they made their own independent decision. Bush wants to imply by this (and again not justified) that this is just as much "their responsibility" too and are equally to blame for mistaken assumptions.

Even Bush's arguments can be refreshingly reframed so that his implications see that light of day of real reason. Sadly, even to the point that it becomes clear that he is either ignorant of the constitutional roles of his branch or that he is so unwilling to accept responsibility that he is really asking for his authority to be significantly reduced.

Bush is saying that congress was just as informed as his administration in making a decision in going to war (we can assume that the Whitehouse would have gladly allowed senators to carry out their own investigation and analsysis before coming up with a decision). So his position in effect implies that congress has an equal responsibility for the decision to go to war. However, this isn't a correct assumption and the Supreme courts limitations on the War Powers resolution shows that this assumption is false. Bush's goal with this poor reasoning was an attempt to force congress to passively accept a great responsibility in the decision making for this war but with this very logic he actually is given credibility to an argument for a greater activist role by congress. Because while there may be temporary imbalances, there is an undeniable reality that within functional (versus dysfunctional) environments that wherever responsibility is expected, so must be given the authority to control the outcomes. Only in dysfunctional families, institutions of slavery and other unbalanced and unhealthy environments does responsibility fall on those who do not authority to change the related outcomes.

If the Senate is going to be held responsible to the extent that Bush wants to share this responsibility with them, then their only recourse is to assume more authority, after all they got to get reelected, too.

Where Bush has veered dramatically from his predecessors is in not taking the full responsibility given to him by the constitution and confirmed by the Supreme Court, although he has asserted his authority in this area. Past presidents as well as the present one have deemed it their right as commander-in-chief to commit troops without congressional approval, but have carried out the practice of informing and consulting with congress to the extent that the rigors of declaring war has never been asked by a president since WW II. The working premise (until Bush's latest arguments) has seen the president as commander-in-chief as the primary authority (with the related responsibility) for all military actions which is not abdicated whenever he involves congress as a means to carry out a 'gut check' with the American people. Until these latest arguments presented b the president himself, no one in government has questioned who was ultimately in charge of the War in Iraq and that congress and the American people have entrusted to him both the authority and the responsibility to have done his job in good faith as part of the requirements of his office (not congress's).

Bush is now allowing us to call into question the use of power and the extension of trust given to the presidential office in particular when it comes to the war decision making process, and to put it more into the hands of congress, or at least the Senate.

How has Bush gotten himself into a position of ducking responsibility and now unwittingly abdicating his power? Chiefly, it is poor leadership. Bush has abdicated responsibility for providing wise leadership and the maintaining a trust and confidence that he will appropriately hold people accountable within his administration. He is now 'sharing' the woes of his administration and the results of failed leadership with those who aren't supposed to be carrying such responsibility. For those he is trying to now share the blame with, would have been rightly accused of micro-managing and second-guessing the trustworthiness of the president's administration and its role in going to war with Iraq.

So why would any senator, Republican or Democrat, accept the such accountability for this war disaster without taking future actions to assure they have more authority over the executive branch to do its job? Bush needs to be challenged on this. Is he handing over the keys of the presidency to congress, is he abdicating the role of executive leadership which comes with both the authority to make the decision and also the full responsibility for that decision. He can't spread the blame as widely and thickly as he likes without some cost.

Only the president and not congress would have the oversight and practicality to overcome the biases and prejudices and even outright battles of ideologies as policies are being formed and plans being made to fight against terrorism. It was up to Bush and his senior staff to set the tone and even personally arbitrate that no one view prevailed without it having to be rigorously validated. By the strong tones of Cheney and Rumsfield before the war, we were left with the impression that they were rigorously convinced in their conclusions. This is not a unique aspect to governmental leadership but is common to most leadership situations including the running of companies.

Did Bush ask for a rigorous debate in Congress or is he now saying that the Senate should have asked for one? Bush is now laying down the justification for congress to second guess every significant administration action, because with his "sharing the responsibility" he is now asking for congress to "take more charge with authority"?

Maybe a reporter should ask the president whether he is suggesting that we broaden the powers of congress via a constitutional amendment to give the senate the AUTHORITY and RESPONSIBILITY to determine through debate and due process the need to commit military personnel into action for future situations that would include scenarios like Iraq.