I concur with all of the praise for Diana Powe's comment today, but it's unsurprising. For those who don't know, she's a long-time police officer in Texas (as she's written about) who comments here infrequently but always insightfully, and I, too, think she would make a superb blogger or political writer, were she so inclined. A comment she wrote relating her experiences as a police officer arresting and detaining people to the Jose Padilla matter was one of the best blog comments I ever read.

Let's walk through this.

The President does not have the right to ignore the American people on grounds that he knows what he is doing is right. That is for the people to decide, they've decided, he is ignoring them. His power is delegated to him by the people. It is not his, intrinsically.

Actually it is. He was elected President not once but twice. The Constitution is specific about his authority. That coupled with precedent outlines his latitude and scope of operations, not Senator Rudman. Regarding Congress, they voted to give him authority to use the military on a bi-partisan basis, with a Democrat Senate. The American people spoke through Congress and any dissenters to Congressional action "have no right to be right." That was your point, no?

if you believe that the AUMF gives him some sort of personal authority, then maybe you're right. Maybe Congress should repeal the AUMF. You know the guy better than I do, do you think that would make him listen?

It might, but he's stated that Congress has the right to defund the war. It is that action of Congress that is required to stop the war. That would be the people speaking, yes? Well it seems that Congress can't get it's act together enough to actually say, what you want them to say. So if you are relying on Congress to be the voice of the people, it is clear that the people are conflicted on what to do, which leaves the authorization intact. And... if you are going to rely on Rudman's concept, dissenters have no right, to be right. Clear enough? Any questions?

DClaw makes great point about the admin's desire to push the ultimate failure of the Iraqi Debacle onto the next, preferably Dem, POTUS. I've been watching them lay the groundwork for claiming that whatever bloodbath occurs when we pull out, (as we will inevitably have to do--unless as Che pasa points out we just stay forver to avoid calling it a loss) is the fault of the weak-willed Dems. Their hope is obviously to salvage their shredded credibility by jumping on the Dems for whatever happens after we pull out.

The neo-cons have proven themselves to be incompetent imbeciles, and even the slimmest possibility that they will somehow manage to slither back into power by avoiding the responsibility for the aftermath of our pullout from Iraq has to be avoided. The only way to make sure they can't blame the Dems for what happens after we leave is to establish (beyond the power of the neo-cons to challenge it) that whatever happens in Iraq from here on in is Bush's fault.

I've said this many times before, but I think it's critical to take on this argument before it happens, and make sure the majority of Americans know that Bush's Iraqi Nightmare, with all it's various appendages and possibilities, belongs squarely in Bush's and the neo-con's laps. No matter what happens in Iraq as we try to pick up the pieces, the fact is they've created a situation with NO decent outcomes, and the best anyone can do to clean up is try to pick the lesser of many possible evils. American's should not be in a position where the remnants of the Bush regime manage to blame somebody else for the outcome in Iraq, and thereby slime their way back onto the throne.

The problem that those who are opposed to the mismanagement of the Iraq invasion and the means by which the U.S. fights terrorism have is they have not successfully refuted the concept of limited perpetual war providing stimulus to specific sectors of the economy. The defense industry, the energy sector, and the news media are heavily invested in the concept of perpetual war as a substitute for total war or genocide for the stimulation of the U.S. economy.

Victory is possible if the U.S. decides to crush the will of the Iraqi people. The fact that most Iraqis believe that they are fighting a necessary war to prevent the destruction of their homes and their families from an invading force with a foreign, and perceived evil agenda aggravates their intention to fight until the U.S. leaves. This idea turns the the limited war concept into one of perpetual war. The one method that could resolve this war in a victory for the U.S. is to break the will of the Iraqi people. This would require an unlimited assault against Iraq.

The world has only one weapon with which to combat American interference in the internal politics of any nation, and that is economic isolation, because world opinion has a very limited effect on the current leadership. Money is what makes this game move, not morality, not world opinion, and as we can see from recent events, not the desire of the majority of the American people.

It was the U.S. that started this war, not the Iraqi people. Iraq's leaders foolishly believed that world opinion would protect their nation from an invasion, but they were wrong. The temptation of $14 trillion in Iraq's resources coupled with the perception of a weak Iraqi military were too great for the current leadership in this country to resist.

It is also necessary to refute the arguments contained in "A Clean Break" with an alternative argument that has the result of protecting the U.S. economy and energy supply. Without a workable plan that results in a positive outcome for those sectors of the economy that are benefiting from the war there will be no change. It is also necessary to develop an alternative plan to that put forth by the PNAC. Without these two arguments defeated the current self-proclaimed elite in this country are not motivated to change their methods for maintaining their influence over world events.