Democracy for Vancouver

The following statement was issued by Our Congressman last night in response to George W. Bush’s intention to significantly increase military personnel, up to 21,500, serving in the Iraq occupation:

My first response to the President’s speech was one of profound sadness. Sadness at the loss of so many lives, sadness at the tremendous cost to our nation financially, and, frankly, sadness that the President has lost so much credibility with his own people and in the world. Every American and every member of Congress is absolutely committed to supporting our troops and ensuring their safety and success. The trouble is, I am not convinced that the steps the President described tonight will really enhance either the safety or the success of our troops and he has still failed to answer key and core questions about his strategy. I also believe there are a number of other measures and approaches that the President is neglecting that might be more effective in securing the safety of our own nation and of our soldiers on the ground. …

I was also troubled that, as he has done since before this conflict started and continuing in his speech tonight, President Bush has still never honestly and realistically told the American people how long this will take, what it will cost in lives and money, and how we will pay for it. If he cannot answer this, his strategy has not been carefully thought through, if he will not answer it, he is not leveling with the people. That was the problem before the war started and it is still the problem with what he has outlined tonight.

The founders of this nation intentionally and quite clearly gave the Congress the power to check an overzealous or irresponsible executive and Congress needs to exercise that power. We need to insist on answers to these core questions, and if those answers are not forthcoming or compelling, we need to demand a change in strategy and set clear limits on what will or will not be allowed to go forward.

Those, in the administration or within the Congress itself, who suggest that Congress should not or cannot exercise this authority have a different, and I believe dangerous, understanding of the foundation of our Constitutional Democratic Republic. If the President, the Congress, or the people themselves believe that Congress, as the directly elected representatives of the American people, have no voice in whether or not our country begins or remains at war, and whether or not our sons and daughters will be sent to die, then none of us, not the President or the Congress, has any business trying to bring a democracy to other nations because we have lost sight of how our own republic is supposed to function. That, in the long run, may be a much greater concern and threat than what happens in Iraq.

Baird was slightly less subtle on Thom Hartmann (the audio of him on Hartmann is at the bottom of this post) this morning (making a rare second appearance in a week), stating that he was not aware that “Commander In Chief” was latin for “king”. This remark seemed to be aimed at some of his recalcitrant colleagues in the Congress who fail to recognize their ability, let alone responsibility, as defined in the Constitution to reign in the White House cowboy. To his credit Baird seemed even more agitated with the former than the latter. Equally important is Baird’s recognition that we as a country have little business trying to “export democracy” when we ourselves are clearly in need of a collective civics refresher. -fg

Rep. Brian Baird starts at the 8:06 min:sec in this broadcast.