The Innocent Bystander Fable Goes Into Overdrive

The Washington Post is the latest Establishment media organ to push what I have called the Innocent Bystander Fable (memorialized in this YouTube video) -- the myth that Democrats have no power to stop the war, despite controlling both houses of Congress. The Post writes, "Democrats began their fight against what came to be called the surge with public opinion on their side, but with virtually no real weapons to force Bush to change."

For reference, here is Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

Translated into vernacular, that's the part of the Constitution that says the Congress -- and only the Congress -- has the power of the purse. If congressional leaders decided to NOT use that power of the purse, this war would be over.

And let's be clear on one more thing. You know how we're hearing all this talk of "we don't have 60 votes, much less 67 votes" to pass a bill to end the war? The Post regurgitates it, claiming that "because of a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate and 67 votes to overturn a veto, Reid faced an almost impossible challenge" to end the war.

Just stop for a moment and flip the argument around. The argument inherently admits that all you need is 40 votes to stop a blank check from passing the U.S. Senate (and this says nothing of the simple fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could simply refuse to bring another blank check war spending bill to the floor of their respective houses of Congress).

So while you may or may not agree that Congress should use its power of the purse to end the war, there is no debate that Congress does, in fact, have the power of the purse to end the war -- and thus Democrats who control Congress do have a very "real weapon to force Bush to change."

Now, I understand why Democratic politicians in Washington are pushing the Innocent Bystander Fable. Facing polls that show the vast majority of Americans want an end to this war, they need to come up with an excuse as to why they refuse to end the war -- and so their excuse is the Innocent Bystander Fable's claim that they just don't have the power.

But now the Innocent Bystander Fable is being taken up by the Beltway media as an assumed fact. It is being woven into the political narrative as something as concretely true as water being wet. Reporters have, in other words, become totally complicit with scheming politicians who want to pretend that the U.S. Constitution quite literally does not exist.

Such irresponsible behavior by the press rivals its complicity in pushing the nation to war by refusing to ask questions about pre-war intelligence. Only this time, it's arguably worse. Whereas beforehand, reporters could at least sound vaguely credible by arguing that they were "fooled" and didn't have access to the raw intelligence, this time, it's impossible to pretend they don't know what the U.S. Constitution is or didn't have access to a copy of it (it's right here if you are looking).

And the result is basically the same: Casualties mount and American national security is weakened all because the folks in Washington refuse to ask our political leaders the most basic questions about the most basic facts.

Cross-posted from Working Assets

Comments

[LittleBrother]

As depraved, degenerate, and vicious as the Republic Party is, it's the Democrats who are making fools of partisan loyalists who cling to the belief that the Democratic political elite is morally superior to their counterparts.

Yes, the Dems are good at coming off as merely inept or "spineless", as kinder, gentler, humanitarian, well-intended politicians unable to prevail against the pro-war forces despite their best efforts. But beneath the show of incompetence and weakness, they're actually complicit; they're not resisting the maladministration because they buy into the same premises that have resulted in wanton warmongery such as the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

They're pretending to be victims or captives of the mean-spirited, predatory bully of the Republic Party. But they're actually in on it-- it's We the People who are the victim.

So how much longer will would-be progressives continue to support this corrupt party? As I've written over and over, it's like the joke Woody Allen tells in "Annie Hall": a man mentions to his psychiatrist that the man's brother thinks he's a chicken. When the psychiatrist suggests that the man bring in his brother to be treated, the man says, "Well, I would... but we need the eggs."

From this disaffected Independent's point of view, continuing to support the Democrats in hope that they will become an actual opposition party is like saying, "We need the eggs."

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

David: Thank you for cutting through the crap (as usual).

I think this country is as close to extinction as it has ever been before. The Constitution has been shredded and left of the floor. The two parties have merged to be the "washington party" and NO ONE is doing the people's business. Instead, they're doing BUSINESS' business.

Signing statements. The elimination of habeas corpus. Treasonous acts such as lying us into a war and then outing a covert agent because her husband revealed the truth about their lies. A VP who moves freely (in a bunker somewhere in his mind) between two branches of govt. A Supreme Court that stops votes being counted and annoits someone as president. A VP who gets deferred compensation from a company that was awarded no-bid contracts to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. The politicization of the Justice Dept AND the Supreme Court. Caging lists. Fear mongering the public about terrorists instead of catching said terrorists. The whole Bush and Saudi relationship stinks of corruption and wrong-doing.

The glass may be half full, but there's a big hole in the damn thing somewhere.

[MelFamy]

Your post begs the question of WHY won't the democrats act to end the war. Is it because they believe that, in spite the public's wishes, that pulling out would make things worse? And are they afraid that if things worsened that they would get the blame? If they are indeed afraid to act out of concern for losing the majority power that they refuse to take advantage of, then they do not deserve power at all. Well , things will get worse whatever we do. The question is how many more American lives will be lost along with those of the poor Iraqis.

[jvarga]

The cynical part of me wonders if the democrats think that they need this calamity to continue until the next elections. In otherwords, they could act to end the war now, but it would not yield the political rewards that allowing it to fester for another year would.

The cynical part of me wouldn't be surprised with any of our politicians, regardless of party, doing such a thing.

[LeftRight]

Yeah, but then the "liberal" press would call them bad names, and the republicans wouldn't let them play with their ball, and it would just be oh so horrible!!!!

I was hoping watching the elction results last november that even if we didn't end the war right away that they would at least stand up to bushco and require oversight. Instead we got "We don't have the power to overturn his veto" and "The vice president isn't a member of the executive branch" and "Just ignore those congressional subpoenas, they're worthless".

Clowngress needs to grow a pair, stand up to this unconstitutional bastard and grind him into the dust, no more of this "He'll be gone soon" stuff!!!