What I like about the article is that it tells us who exactly is responsible for making these contingency plans. The Congress. The Congress should also come up with a military outline of what we can/will and can't/won't do in the event of a terrorist attack. Along with succession of a leader this would also take days off of any response action needed to be taken by our military as the plan would be there and the funds already appropriated. If a group like ISIL landed on our shores more of them would die from laughing at our broken system then combat would kill. It would be days or weeks before we could get a plan together to fight an invasion but why isn't that plan also ready?
Firstly the article is specifically about the line of succession. Congress has a line of succession in place... it did its job. If that plan is deficient then they my indeed need to address it but just because Norman Ornstein and Tom Mann of the Brookings institute saw a perceived problem in government, creating a panel and submitted their desired results does not constitute a failure of Congress to act. Panels get it wrong all the time... I mean, just think of the distinguished minds that choose winners of the Nobel peace prize.
While they may have a legitimate concern about the President Pro Temper because of age, the position is filled by people with the most experience, generally speaking, and is a person elected repeatedly by people of their state and if we contend that Senators are no longer representative of individual state interests but are instead representatives of the country as a whole, people should have little problem with this process. If the age of the president pro tem is the problem then might I suggest term limits..
Ornstein rants about several 'what ifs' that could take out the Judiciary and attacks so devastating that it would kill so many in congress that they couldn't operate at a quorum of at least half of its members as required by the constitution. They say that things were fine during the cold war because we would be forewarned about a nuclear attack from Russia but not during this time of terrorism... as if a Borei class BMS (successor to the cold war yankee class) couldn't decimate Washington in under 5 minutes with a first strike. What are we to do about that?... every elected and appointed person selects 4 or 5 non Washington 'subs' for Senatorial 'advice and consent' in case Washington is vaporized? They also talk about 9/11 being the first non state sponsored attack against the US... I am afraid Timothy McVeigh beat Al Quida to the punch in that regard... no outcry from Brookings then.
While their may be a perceived problem with this process, and you are in agreement with Brookings conclusion, does not make congress derelict for not jumping up and changing their processes to suit you.
Your second comment about congress coming up with a 'plan' is humorous. You spend most of your time defending the right of a president (or at least this one) to do just about any thing he pleases( precedents, lies, obfuscation...) the only contingency congress could come up with in advance is to create a law that would immediately defund the military if the president used it in a way counter to the law... Of coarse we already have a law that isn't given much heed but if congress (as a body of government and not a group of fighting factions) actually tried to enforce the law... they would be called unpatriotic do nothings or obstructionists.
Just how much time would you like congress to spend on 'war planning' contingencies?... I thought that was a function of the Executive and his well funded Department of Defense. I wonder just how much thought/time the do nothing congress in say... 1950 wasted by not contemplating non state radicals flying commercial aircraft into buildings in downtown new york or for that matter how much thought the president and all his men put into the nations security when he opened our borders to just about anyone with a thimble full of ambition. Fear not though, I think that invasions are likely well prepared for... if the president isn't so unfocused and clueless as to understand the importance of his actions... or lack thereof.
The top secret bunker which was built to house Congress in case of a nuclear attack on Washington has been declassified and you can now tour the luxurious facility and even rent space for your wedding or company meeting. Here is the information : http://www.greenbrier.com/Meetings-Groups/Meeting-Rooms/The-Bunker.aspx
Congress might as well plan war contingencies. They sure as hell don't do anything else. The congress in 1950 the 81st was one of the productive ones. I am not talking about long range plans here but this congress as all the bitch and absolutely no fresh ideas about anything. Whatever this president does we can be sure of one thing. In the eyes of this congress it will be wrong. And he will get no actionable ideas to help everyone gain a consensus.
What I like about the article is that it tells us who exactly is responsible for making these contingency plans. The Congress. The Congress should also come up with a military outline of what we can/will and can't/won't do in the event of a terrorist attack. Along with succession of a leader this would also take days off of any response action needed to be taken by our military as the plan would be there and the funds already appropriated. If a group like ISIL landed on our shores more of them would die from laughing at our broken system then combat would kill. It would be days or weeks before we could get a plan together to fight an invasion but why isn't that plan also ready?
ReplyDeleteFirstly the article is specifically about the line of succession. Congress has a line of succession in place... it did its job. If that plan is deficient then they my indeed need to address it but just because Norman Ornstein and Tom Mann of the Brookings institute saw a perceived problem in government, creating a panel and submitted their desired results does not constitute a failure of Congress to act. Panels get it wrong all the time... I mean, just think of the distinguished minds that choose winners of the Nobel peace prize.
DeleteWhile they may have a legitimate concern about the President Pro Temper because of age, the position is filled by people with the most experience, generally speaking, and is a person elected repeatedly by people of their state and if we contend that Senators are no longer representative of individual state interests but are instead representatives of the country as a whole, people should have little problem with this process. If the age of the president pro tem is the problem then might I suggest term limits..
Ornstein rants about several 'what ifs' that could take out the Judiciary and attacks so devastating that it would kill so many in congress that they couldn't operate at a quorum of at least half of its members as required by the constitution. They say that things were fine during the cold war because we would be forewarned about a nuclear attack from Russia but not during this time of terrorism... as if a Borei class BMS (successor to the cold war yankee class) couldn't decimate Washington in under 5 minutes with a first strike. What are we to do about that?... every elected and appointed person selects 4 or 5 non Washington 'subs' for Senatorial 'advice and consent' in case Washington is vaporized? They also talk about 9/11 being the first non state sponsored attack against the US... I am afraid Timothy McVeigh beat Al Quida to the punch in that regard... no outcry from Brookings then.
While their may be a perceived problem with this process, and you are in agreement with Brookings conclusion, does not make congress derelict for not jumping up and changing their processes to suit you.
Your second comment about congress coming up with a 'plan' is humorous. You spend most of your time defending the right of a president (or at least this one) to do just about any thing he pleases( precedents, lies, obfuscation...) the only contingency congress could come up with in advance is to create a law that would immediately defund the military if the president used it in a way counter to the law... Of coarse we already have a law that isn't given much heed but if congress (as a body of government and not a group of fighting factions) actually tried to enforce the law... they would be called unpatriotic do nothings or obstructionists.
Just how much time would you like congress to spend on 'war planning' contingencies?... I thought that was a function of the Executive and his well funded Department of Defense. I wonder just how much thought/time the do nothing congress in say... 1950 wasted by not contemplating non state radicals flying commercial aircraft into buildings in downtown new york or for that matter how much thought the president and all his men put into the nations security when he opened our borders to just about anyone with a thimble full of ambition. Fear not though, I think that invasions are likely well prepared for... if the president isn't so unfocused and clueless as to understand the importance of his actions... or lack thereof.
The top secret bunker which was built to house Congress in case of a nuclear attack on Washington has been declassified and you can now tour the luxurious facility and even rent space for your wedding or company meeting. Here is the information : http://www.greenbrier.com/Meetings-Groups/Meeting-Rooms/The-Bunker.aspx
DeleteCongress might as well plan war contingencies. They sure as hell don't do anything else. The congress in 1950 the 81st was one of the productive ones. I am not talking about long range plans here but this congress as all the bitch and absolutely no fresh ideas about anything. Whatever this president does we can be sure of one thing. In the eyes of this congress it will be wrong. And he will get no actionable ideas to help everyone gain a consensus.
Delete