Opinion
|
Ethicalego
Examined thinking improves the quality of life.
|
||
| April 09, 2007 | |||
 |
Show the reasoning that supports a decisions. Americans often make bad choices for political leaders and those leaders make bad decisions. It is troublesome how often they fail to offer the reasoning that supports their action.
President George Bush enjoyed unprecedented popularity and support during much of his presidency. However, he persistently made bad foreign and domestic policy choices that destroyed America's credibility as an economic and military superpower. Still, he stubbornly continued this policy and lost support for himself and for Republicans who lost control of Congress. Losing American’s support took some doing, because they wanted to believe in him no matter he never made a credible argument for his Middle East policy. The Democrats should have learned from President Bush and Republicans’ bad choices the need to test the reasonableness of their decisions. However, it was clear even before they won back control of Congress that they were more likely to self-destruct than take advantage of the political opportunity Bush and the Republicans handed them. The Democrats’ first bad choice happened immediately after they took office. They denied Republicans a say in the legislative process so they could pass a series of laws without delay. They flagrantly broke their campaign promise to voters that they would restore nonpartisan proceedings in Congress. Obviously they planned this strategy before the elections and lied to voters about their intensions. Democrats had the votes to pass their legislative agenda even if they allowed Republicans a voice. It just would have taken longer. Still, they made the bad choice that it was more important for them to impress voters with the speed of their legislative action rather than impress them with sincerity and truthfulness. Passing a nonbinding resolution against President Bush’s plan to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq was another bad choice by Democrats in Congress and the Republicans who joined them. This conclusion does not mean that I support or ever supported the United States’ invasion of Iraq. I deplored the prospect of this happening before Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The 2002 Iraq Resolution was so vague and general that it served as an abandonment of congressional responsibility the way it gave President Bush nearly unlimited powers. It included meaningless claims like this one: “Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.” This is a meaningless claim, because al-Qaeda was also in the United States before 9/11 without our knowledge and in many other Middle East nations. Many members in this Congress did not sign the 2002 Iraq Resolution. It gave President Bush authority “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” Nevertheless, they are bound by its terms. This authority granted in the 2002 Iraq Resolution means Congress cannot legally disapprove a particular presidential war tactic. They can withhold funding and force Bush to withdraw the troops from Iraq if they believe he is abusing his authority in ways that harm the nation. So, Congress cannot straddle the fence with nonbinding resolutions. It is required legally and ethically to declare one position or the other. Their indecisive nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush’s order to send more troops to Iraq confuses America's world image already tarnished by a troubled occupation of Iraq. Legislative bodies like Congress rule by committee. They often produce fence straddling laws and resolutions to appear bold without exposing themselves to responsibility. Leaders in executive positions like president do not have this luxury of invisibility. This brings us to American voters and their tendency to make bad choices for political leaders. Many 2008 presidential candidates supported the 2002 Iraq Resolution as congress members and now claim they would act differently with new information. Voters have a unique opportunity to test those claims and see who has presidential leadership ability and who has mostly committee leadership ability. The nation is in crisis over Iraq. How would those 2008 presidential candidates respond if they were office and had the responsibility? Each presidential candidate should state his or her clear position about United States Iraq policy now as a president must do without benefit of hindsight. Some of them will make excuses why they shouldn’t do it. Voters will make a bad choice if they fail to disqualify from consideration any presidential candidate who cannot or will not do this. Kenneth Brooks is a freelance writer and speaker. Contact him at P.O. Box 882, Vallejo, CA 94590. E-mail to: opinion@ethicalego.com.
|
|
|
