Senator Daschle's War Questions Don't Go Far Enough

On a recent "Fox News Sunday" show, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) made some remarks questioning the direction of the US campaign against terrorism. "We really don't know what the direction is, frankly. We talk about going into Yemen. We're talking now about going into the Philippines and other places…Before we go into a lot of these other locations, I think it is important for us to better understand what our purpose is, how long will we be there, how many troops will be there, how does it affect our efforts in Afghanistan."

"Within minutes" after Daschle spoke, according to the Washington Post, Republican congressional leaders reacted. House Majority Whip DeLay characterized Daschle's questions as "disgusting." Rep. Thomas Davis of Virginia implied that Daschle was flirting with treason, claiming that his "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies [the Constitutional definition of treason] by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country." Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott sniped, "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field? He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united."

It is tempting for me to join the Republican mob in bashing Sen. Daschle. He stands for abortion, gun control, and giving up our national sovereignty to the UN and other international organizations. His positions on most issues are a danger to our freedom and our Constitution. It would be satisfying to score political points against him at any opportunity.

In this case, though, Daschle is right. The presidency exists primarily to execute the will of Congress, as expressed in legislation. That's why they call it the "executive" branch. It is part of the job description of every member of Congress to oversee the actions of the executive branch to ensure that the will of Congress is being faithfully executed. It would be impossible to do that job without questioning the president's plans and direction; and the direction of the "war on terrorism" is certainly open to question.

President Bush initiated the campaign in Afghanistan without the constitutionally required declaration of war from Congress. He is now spreading that war to other areas with little more than a nod to Congress.

The Framers of the Constitution were not being frivolous when they set up the rules for declaring war. They were witnesses to the tyranny that can result from centralizing that power. Abraham Lincoln interpreted their motivation in this way: "Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our [Constitutional] Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved so to frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

Now that Senator Daschle has finally decided to ask a few questions about the president's war plans, Mr. Bush's allies in both houses stand ready to vilify the senator as a traitor, out to sow dissention among the American people in a time of "war." The senator "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb." If the penalty for questioning the president's war plans is to be pilloried as a traitor, what more could the Republican leadership do to him if he questioned the very idea of waging war without a declaration from Congress? I think he and any other backbone possessors in Congress should start demanding that no wars be waged without following the Constitutional procedure.