When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had given the infant United States, he replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The collapse of the Roman Republic and the impending demise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should have been warning enough that republics tend to collapse when their people no longer remember what their countries stand for.

Today, self-serving members of Congress are aiding the enemies of the United States by trying to undercut our Armed Forces in Iraq. While Congress has the power to declare war (or authorize the use of force), it is the President’s job to direct the war’s conduct. It is hard to imagine anything better for the morale of the enemy than to read about how Representatives and Senators are introducing legislation to force President Bush to withdraw our troops. The Polish Sejm (Parliament), in which any member could veto an appropriation, was the last major legislative body that did this sort of thing. The Sejm eventually lost its power to legislate or veto anything whatsoever, because Russia, Prussia, and Austria divided Poland and thereby relieved its citizens of the need to govern themselves.

The fate of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is in fact quite instructive. Like the United States, it was probably the most powerful nation on earth when it was at the height of its power. It had a nearly-invincible military apparatus in the form of its elite cavalry and amazing scientific innovations. Poland’s heavy cavalry, cuirassiers with long (hollow) lances that could outreach infantry pikes, could simply ride through and over Swedish pike-and-musket formations. The only way to be safe from the Husaria was to get inside a tabor (Cossack wagon fortress), in which case the Poles would doubtlessly bring up fast-moving horse artillery–they introduced it perhaps a hundred years before the Prussians–to blast you out of it. One source claims that Polish infantry had ten times as much firepower as contemporary Spanish tercios, presumably through a far more efficient volley system.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth also had most if not all of the freedoms that were encompassed in the original Bill of Rights. These included freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Although only the hereditary gentry (szlachta) could vote, only landowners could vote in the early United States. The two countries were therefore comparable in their freedoms, and the Poles were perhaps two hundred years ahead of us in enacting them. Furthermore, Poland’s flag (unlike the flags of European monarchies, which often bore a royal family’s coat of arms), stood for liberty. According to Polish legend, a white eagle defended her nest against Duke Lech, one of Poland’s founders, so successfully that the Duke gave up his attack and used the white eagle as a symbol of Polish willingness to defend their land from aggressors.

How, then, could a country so similar to the early United States, and one that possessed a formidable military apparatus like that of the modern United States, have allowed itself to be partitioned by three other countries? When Poland created its Parliament, it set it up to require a unanimous vote to do anything. The purpose was to prevent a “tyranny of the majority” from trampling the rights and freedoms of any Pole. What was amazing was that it actually worked for several decades, at least well enough to avoid any major disasters. In 1652, however,

Janusz II [Radziwill] also used political intimidation against King Jan Kazimierz in order to secure the offices of the Pallatine of Vilnius and the Grand Hetman of Lithuania. In 1652 he paralysed the central government by evoking a Liberum Veto-a procedure whereby any single member of the Parliament could halt its proceedings by the simple expression of dissent-saying ‘Veto’ (Latin: I deny).

It also turned out that Janusz Radziwill was a traitor to his country, having aligned himself with King Charles Gustav of Sweden.

Later, in 1654, during the Swedish invasion of Poland, known as Potop (The Deluge), together with his cousin Boguslaw (son of Janusz I and his second wife Elzbieta Zofia von Hohenzollern, daughter of the Elector of Brandenburg), they began negotiations with Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, aimed at breaking the union between Poland and Lithuania. …All that Boguslaw and Janusz managed to achieve, it seems, was to tarnish the Radziwill family name for years to come. Their own lines became extinct by the next generation.

The corruptability of the Polish Sejm, and the fact that a single veto could prevent the Commonwealth from actually using its almost-invincible army, became quite apparent to other geopolitical aspirants. In 1683, agents of King Louis XIV tried to bribe members of the Sejm into vetoing war against the Ottoman Empire, which was in the process of invading Central Europe. They failed only because the Vatican’s agents outbribed them.

The San Francisco Chronicle now describes how 21st century Janusz Radziwills in the Congress of the United States are trying to make their own country lose a war to advance their own political aspirations.

Congress girds for clash with Bush
Hearing examines war powers granted by Constitution

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

“Since the president is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him,'’ Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Tuesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing he chaired that looked into Congress’ constitutional war powers.

Feingold has introduced a Senate bill that would ban the use of government funds to continue the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq six months after enactment. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has a similar proposal.

And similar bills have been proposed in the House by such outspoken anti-war advocates as Bay Area Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland and Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma.

Even individuals as far to the left as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid deserve credit for recognizing their responsibility to our Armed Forces and the credibility of the United States.

However, Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada have said they will oppose an outright cutoff of funds, which they view as a message to the troops in Iraq that Congress doesn’t back them.

…Bush, acknowledging that all has not gone well in Iraq, has asked lawmakers to give his buildup tactic a chance to work. And he and Cheney have warned that the nonbinding resolutions would hearten those fighting against American forces and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It is also necessary to remind the Democratic Left, whose members were baying for Saddam Hussein’s blood during the late 1990s, of their own responsibility for this war. Hillary Clinton cannot make a speech like this in 2002 and now join the lynch mob that is baying, “Bush lied and men died.”

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Nor can Albert Gore make this kind of speech in 1998 and, when Bush acted on the words of Gore and other Democrats in 2003, proclaim, “He betrayed this country.” If so, Mr. Gore, you are equally a traitor if not more so, noting your alleged acceptance of illegal campaign contributions from a hostile foreign power (China).

If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people.

So tell us again, Albert Gore, how George Bush “betrayed this country” by fixing the problem you described in the above speech.

This, meanwhile, is what John Kerry said as recently as January 2003:

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.

If we want to keep our Republic, we must make it clear to the Radziwills, the Quislings, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore, the Clintons, and Genghis John the Khan Kerry that we voters will not tolerate these insults to our intelligence, nor will we tolerate self-serving efforts to undermine our Armed Forces during time of war. These individuals’ actions must have consequences during next year’s elections.