While the all-important "People sure do hate Mark Penn" story makes the front page of the Washington Post, the paper’s editors display their fantastic news judgment by putting this story 17 pages later, aka "The Walter Pincus Page".
The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs.
Excuse me, "indefinite combat operations"? As in, perpetual? As in "this is how we play the time of war card forever to elect Republicans".
Once again, the 2002 Iraq resolution is used to browbeat Congress until Bush is able to do whatever the hell he pleases.
I guess it’s bad form to point that out repeatedly in a nice speech though. And no substitute for experience that makes sure one positions themselves to look tough by voting for war — at every opportunity.
But even Obama is not completely out of the woods according to the Bush Administration’s "AH AM THE LAW" argument:
Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey T. Bergner said that authority exists with or without a U.N. mandate. In addition to the resolutions, he wrote, "Congress has repeatedly provided funding for the Iraq war." Democrats have failed in several attempts to curtail funding for the Iraq war.
So really, experience, inexperience, it doesn’t really matter — what matters is that you are a stubborn, power mad, war mongering, petulant idiot any other plan is for cowards. For Bush, it’s all good.
(pic from Harrity)