WaPo Peter Baker Fails to Comprehend Power Shift to House

Ref Despite the loss of public support after the Iraq WMD delusions, the media appears to be slow in awakening to reality.

Things have changed.

Unspun: Good point. This is why things are hopeful: Consider this

* * *

Did you see how easy that was: House sets the agenda.

Going forward, applying this approach you will see that articles like this can be read in a new light -- they are evidence the media remains a poodle of the minority tyrants.

Walk with me as we enter into the arena where we will systematically engage with the poodles in the media and GOP, and how they remain delusional, disconnected from the power shift, and the days of the President’s illegal rebellion are finite.

* * *

It is an error to say that the DNC is waging a battle: The GOP wages illegal war against the Constitution. The GOP leadership has been complicit with war crimes, and illegal rebellion.

Peter Baker of the Washington Post appears to be spewing forth non-sense.

* * *

Contrary to Baker's assertion, the President faces no opposition: He faces a defeat. There is no deference to tyrants. The House is not required to do anything. Before continuing, you should share with your friends this bad new for the President, GOP, and media.

The opposition is not in Congress. It is We the People through the rule of law and Constitution. This confrontation is one that the President started. We the People chose to rebuke this President and the GOP in November 2006.

* * *

The House is the superior chamber. The House resolution on the Iraq war was fair notice that the GOP and President need to learn to grovel before the House.

The GOP and President have no power to compel the House to do anything; and the House may filibuster and veto the Senate, GOP, and the President. That is not a defensive position of the President; that is a President that has been rebuked, substantially removing many myths.

The House resolution is a reminder to the lazy media that We the People shall impose our will through the House. The lazy media which assented to war crimes in Iraq is still on probation.

It doesn't matter if the resolution is or is not a fair or clear wakeup call to the President.

The vote in November 2006 shifted the power from the President and Senate to the House. The majority in the House control the agenda in the Senate: If the Senate does not grovel to the House, the House doesn't have to give the GOP or the President anything.

The issue is not whether the Congress will or will not challenge the President. A challenge implies that the President can push back. He cannot. The President may not threaten the House to force it to do anything.

These are not actions. This is power. IT is a new game which the media appears to not understand.

* * *

The superior House is old new. The issue of Iraq is a symptom of the lazy GOP who, despite their power and option to do something, the refused.

The House superior position is a simple reminder that the President cannot do anything unless We the People agree. The President is not leading America; he can hardly be called leading the world.

The President is not lawfully confronting anything: He is a war criminal, violating the laws of war, and his lazy staff counsel is incompetent. They should be disbarred, especially Gonzalez and Addington who are alleged war criminals, as the German War Crimes Prosecutor appears to agree.

* * *

Peter Baker got it wrong. The President’s "latitude" isn't less: It's non-existent. The President, if he does illegally expand this unlawful warfare from Iraq to Iran, will have no legal foundation to compel the House to pay for it. That is the definition of further exposing troops to more harm without the necessary equipment or leadership. That is the same things as recklessness, which the House has rebuked.

* * *

Zbigniew Brzezinski got it right: This is an important moment. But the importance is linked with the events of November 2006, and less with Iraq.

Going forward, this resolution is the reminder that the House is superior to the President and Senate. The House action says less about war, but about power: It has shifted.

* * *

Contrary to Peter Baker's assertion, this House action is not an opening salvo, but a return fire against the President who first violated the laws in 2001. This is a confrontation the President and GOP illegally started, not just about Iraq, but about the Rule of Law.

This struggle is one that only the GOP and President can choose to end. It is incorrect for the media like Peter Baker to pretend that this is something the DNC is or isn't doing. No, it's the action of We the People. The DNC is our proxy in this lawful rebuke and political-counter-strike against the President’s recklessness.

* * *

Contrary to the myth of David J. Rothkopf, the issue is not whether the DNC will or will not lead -- they have done all that is needed. The question goes back to the GOP: When will the GOP lead, and provide support to what the House has the power to decide:

___ When will House end its Veto of the GOP and President? Possibly never. The House doesn’t have to lead, but it can do nothing -- just as the lazy media and GOP have done.

___ When will the House end its filibuster of the Senate, GOP, and President? Again, the House doesn’t have to do anything, nor provide any leadership: It can do nothing, and it is the job of the GOP to provide the leadership and train the President and the media to grovel before the House, We the People, and Constitution.

* * *

David J. Rothkopf got it wrong. The DNC does not have to challenge anything. The burden is on the GOP Senate to Challenge the President: Until the GOP compels the President to grovel like a dog before the House; the House doesn’t have to do anything, nor focus on any agenda of the Senate, GOP, or President.

* * *

Peter Baker would have the world believe that The Speaker is devising something new. No, this is a ruse. Peter Baker gets it wrong.

Bush's hands were tired the moment he took that oath. The issue is not the war, or Iraq, but whether the President will grovel before the House.

Pelosi and Murtha do not have to do anything. It is the burden of the GOP to devise a strategy to assent to the House.

The conditions on the President are clear in the Constitution: He shall assent to the law. Peter Baker gets it wrong. The conditions which may or may not be imposed are smokescreens. The House doesn't have to do anything.

* * *

It is false to say that the President will "keep up" troop levels, Peter Baker. Only Congress has that power: Article 1 Section 8. The conditions are things that the House may impose; if the President does not meet these conditions, that is the President's problem. The President does not have the power to wage illegal warfare.

* * *

It is an illusion for Peter Baker to suggest there is "peril" for the DNC. The rude reality for the Senate, Peter Baker, is that the House -- as a body -- can filibuster the Senate; and the House -- as a body -- can veto the Senate.

The error isn't on the back of the DNC to convince the GOP to do anything. Rather, the leadership problem is the GOP: It's failure to comprehend the reality that if the GOP wants anything, it must grovel before the House.

It doesn't matter whether the DNC can or cannot build support in the Senate; if the Senate is not able to do anything, that means the President gets no bills. The burden, Peter Baker, is on the GOP: When will they end their illegal rebellion against the rule of law.

The GOP has the burden to build support for their agenda before the House; the DNC doesn't have to do anything. It appears Peter Baker fails to comprehend how power has shifted to the House.

* * *

Whether the DNC can or cannot get support is irrelevant: They have power in the House and may legally do nothing: No bills, no discussion, and no cooperation with the GOP. If the President wants anything, Peter Baker, he should -- like the media -- grovel before the House.

* * *

It does not matter of the GOP does or does not have support for bills. It is fair notice to the President and GOP that the House is not required to do anything, and pass any bill.

It is incorrect to mention what did or didn't happen in Vietnam. The legacy of Vietnam didn't stop the GOP from waging illegal war, or repeating the errors of insurgency.

* * *

It is the job of the President and GOP to show they are strong on the rule of law; otherwise they may be lawfully prosecuted for war crimes.

The struggle of the GOP will continue. The needed confrontation in 1974 will have a chance to pay itself out.

* * *

This President, despite the power shift, would have the GOP believe that the issue is war. Incorrect. The issue is power. The GOP wavering and support of the President is good: It further demonstrates that, despite the power shift, they are hoping for something that is not real -- further evidence of their delusion.

* * *

When Peter Baker says that the President has chosen a strategy to "avoid emboldening" the DNC "down the line" -- this is backwards. Peter Baker appears to be supporting more of the denial: The DNC and House were emboldened as of November 2006 to compel the President and Senate, especially the lazy media, to grovel before the House.

The President is making excuses to scare the stupid GOP Members of Congress to remain loyal with an illusory power: The House, not the President or Senate, is the new power center of Washington DC.

The scare tactics of the President are curious. Rather than embrace the reality that the House shall be respected, Peter Baker cites anonymous sources saying that if the GOP "go along" with this, Murtha might be able to do something. That is not a risk, but realty attached with what the House can do.

The errors if for the GOP Senators to believe they can embrace the non-sense of the GO leadership, and pretend that they can oppose the House. They cannot. The GOP has to work with the House; and the House is not required to work with the GOP nor compromise. The House can make the clear, convincing argument that it is the GOP Senators who refuse to do what they should. The burden is always on the GOP and President to grovel to the House.

* * *

James Phillips appears to have got it backwards, also apparently oblivious to how things have changed: The House, James, is the power center, not the President, Senate, or GOP.

Contrary to James Phillips' delusion, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NSC is a committee. But the point is that when the President reuses to lead and is allegedly engaged in war crimes, Congress -- as a committee -- has the power to discipline the President, not support his recklessness and compel him to adjust.

This President' strategy is reckless. James Phillips makes no credible argument as to why the House -- with the power to compel the President to grovel -- should not be treated as the Superior Chamber.

No President has the power to declare war. A "time of war" is for Congress alone to decide. The House has not said that all future wars are or are not bad; it merely stated on this narrow point a disagreement. It is a stretch for James Phillips to suggest that a "non binding" resolution is precedent. To the contrary, James Phillips is really worried about what is going to happen next:

___ Heritage Foundation failure to awaken to the new power center in the House;

___ GOP Senators and Staff counsel falling by the wayside

___ House leaders refusing to consider the Senate GOP's position

What is James Phillips going to do? Nothing. He has no power or influence. All he and the other alleged war criminals in the GOP can do is whine about what "might happen" as a smokescreen to avoid facing reality: The House is the Superior Chamber, and James Phillips needs to learn to grovel more.

James Phillips, I could care less what you think about running a war. Despite the Joint Staff, CIA, and NSC, this President and his committees have failed.

* * *

Peter Baker fails to look at the power shift. What the Congress did or didn't do in times past is interesting, but does not face reality: The House has control.

The President can't make the House do anything. What is the GOP or President going to do -- threaten to shut off money for the House? Ha!

Rather than focus on the Congressional actions to punish the President, why not consider the times when the President groveled before the House.

* * *

Americans marched on November 2006. We the People remain united behind the House.

It would be appropriate for the media, GOP, and White House to comprehend: We the People know the House is superior to the lazy GOP Senators who are complicit with this President's illegal rebellion against the rule of law.

* * *

Original Article Ref

Democrats Signal a Wider Battle Lasting the Rest of President's Term
Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 17, 2007; A01