Replies

A strong Congress is better that a strong president in many ways. A strong Congress safeguards more of our freedoms because of the nature of Congress. As far as Iraq my point is that if the President went in front of Congress and asked for a declaration of war and if Congress granted that request than the MSM could not have said this is Bush's war. They could have complained about the way Bush has handled it...true but they could not have label Bush a warmonger. They would have had to label the entire government that. The people would have been behind it more because they would have had a voice in it. You can not lead a fractured nation into war. The pot shots that the DEMS and some REP are taking at the President over Iraq would not have been possible if the Congress was on record with a vote. The resolution they passed was so watered down that congress could say it meant whatever they said it meant. Congress should have taken an up or down vote to either go to war or to stay home.
There are way for Congress to keep a secret if they wanted too. Committee postings, signed oaths of secrecy, etc. Just because it is hard to do should not mean that you should not do something. But look at the problems secrecy has caused the Bush White House just in the last year (wiretaps, patriot act held up in Congress, secret jails in Europe, Gitmo, Portgate, Katrina response, Libby scandal) if the White house would have had a less secret atmosphere just about all of these would have been mole hills instead with each new revelation about a secret program the President's approval falls threatening his domestic programs, his war fighting ability, his standing with other nations etc.

I believe the less government the better but equal branches above all

The resolutions that Congress passed were enough. Congressmen are on record for both Afghanistan and Iraq, in fact Kerry's vote was used extensively against him during the previous Presidential campaign. Even if they had done what you suggest, do you think that there would really be a difference in what the Congressman say on TV and what the MSM says? No, there would be no difference at all. They will still go on TV and say, "that's not what we meant," and so forth.

Now on to secrecy. Wiretaps, there is no way, whatsoever, that program could have been in the open and been effective. The appropriate Congressional leaders knew. The Patriot Act was held up in Congress over stupid stuff that was a product of the Dems being able to control the message (GWB admin, PR IQ of 2). Over at NRO at the time the deal was passed the National Security experts said as much. Once again, if you have that information out in the open, they aren't secret. Gitmo, what about it? Nothing has been done wrong and nothing has been secret other than classified hearings to determine the status of the prisoners. They have invited the press down, the detainees could challenge status in federal courts, and other things. But I digress but the previous four things have not influenced Bush's poll numbers. Democrats cannot make a winning argument on any of those issues, as uninformed as American's are, they aren't that stupid and they recognize what was going on there.

Portgate was a problem is because the administration has an ineffective spokesperson (McClellan) and can't conduct a PR campaign worth anything. They should have been in front on this and the screwed the pooch. If the administration had effectively controlled the story and explained the situation then it wouldn't be a problem, but they didn't so it is a problem. The Katrina response was a clusterfuck of the highest order, but really, there was nothing they could do that much differently. There was so much miscommunication and confusion that stuff got screwed up. But for the federal response it would have been much worse. Imagine if those halfwits Nagin and Blanco had 100% of the responsibility? The city would still be underwater has tens of thousands would have died. Finally, the Libby scandal, I don't know what to say on this other than the administration could not do anything differently because they did nothing wrong.

Secrecy isn't the problem, it is ineffective communications coming out of the WH and the Republican morons in Congress getting run-over by the Democrats. Half of the Republican caucus is so concerned about being liked by the NYT editorial page that they won't do the right thing.

A strong President isn't a problem as long as Congress properly uses its check, which is has.