Links and Minifeatures 02 24 Saturday

How stupid are the Democrats?

Dems Move to Limit Bush's War Authority

Key lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.

1. On a course for a Constitutional crisis. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but once declared, the conduct is under the President. The ability to "undeclare" war is not explicitly granted or denied Congress in the Constitution, because our founders didn't believe anyone was that stupid. If Congress had refused to give President Bush the authority to invade, that would have been one thing. But now that we're in the middle of shooting, Congress wants to take the war back to Nordies and say, "I don't like how it looks on me." There is a reason this doesn't happen in the real world: If you want to stop shooting at Al Qaeda, it would be intelligent to get them to agree to stop shooting at us. Three words: Not Gonna Happen.



2. Joe Lieberman has made it clear that his loyalty to the Democratic Party ends at a bug out. This would change the senate from 51-49 to 50-50, with Dick Cheney holding the deciding vote. Can you say, "Majority Leader McConnell?"



3. Most importantly, the American people want a victory. Most of them have a pretty good idea how important a victory is, and how costly a defeat would be, and not just in terms of international prestige. We're talking about the war coming here.



4. I said months ago that the greatest gift the voters could give the Republicans was a Democratic victory in 2006. With Bush's ratings having climbed fifteen points since the new Congress took office, he could be our most popular president ever upon leaving office. If the Democratic centrists don't do something soon to wrest control of their party back from the anti-war moonbats, we're in severe danger of one party having more control over the entire political system than has been the case since 1977-78, and we all know how that turned out. Okay, so this time it would be the Republicans, with no danger of the mainstream media singing Kum-bi-yah for them like they did for Carter and still do for the Democrats, but one party systems are no good for anyone. Democrats: Where are your adults? Mardi-Gras is over. Show us your sanity!



**********



This is an excellent idea: a commodities exchange in Ethiopia. Once again, capitalism rises to the rescue!



**********



Security professionals gloomy on terrorism outlook



No. Really?



Just because half the body politic wants us limited to defensive measures, and defensive measures have never once won a war? (Never will, either. At most they buy time.)



If you want to understand it in common sense terms: How many games of football do you think your favorite team might win if they were never allowed to have possession of the ball? If their entire game plan consisted of keeping the other team from scoring? That's playing for a tie, at best, and in unstable conditions.



Even the best defense is going to allow the enemy some points. Furthermore, because they don't need a defense themselves, the opposition can devote more resources to offense, scoring more points than they might otherwise have done.



The only 100% effective defense in this case is to wipe out the terrorists, and prevent any more such organizations from forming. You don't do that with defensive tactics.