Friday, February 23, 2007

Congress Makes The Wrong Move

The Associated Press is reporting that the US Senate is moving to revoke the 2002 authorization for the invasion of Iraq. That resolution gave President Bush the power to use the American military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."According to the report:

Key lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave US troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.

Officials said Thursday the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

Such a plan is more appealing to senators uncomfortable with the other option being explored by opponents of the war: the "slow bleed" plan being developed by Rep. John Murtha that is intended to limit the ability to deploy soldiers into Iraq by placing strict requirements on training and funding.

It probably doesn't matter which route Congress takes to try to end the Iraq war, as both paths are very likely unconstitutional. While it's not clear, Murtha's plan very likely violates the constitutional authority of the president as commander-in-chief as the plan seems to go beyond Congress' role of making rules of the government and regulation of the armed forces. The Senate's plan will likely be vetoed, but it wouldn't have to be. Congress has long ago ceded any responsibility for the control and deployment of the US armed forces. While the president did ask Congress for authorization, the administration also made it clear that it did not have to do, as all administrations have done since the passage of the War Powers Resolution. As I have argued in many posts, Congress' role in such matters is limited to funding the military and declaring war. If Congress really wants to end the US military involvement in Iraq, it will have to cut off funding for the troops.


Gary Anderson said...

Congress should throw everything at Bush. The more they throw at Bush that fails to stick will lead to frustration and will lead us to a reduction of funding.

The dems have 2 years or no one will ever support them again, thinking they are no better than the Repubs. They have to act, and the sooner the better.

But I predict that Bush will move into Iran as well, without their approval, and the constitution will be tested. Iran does not use the dollar in oil exchange and we have no access to their fields. This is a no brainer.

I do believe that Iraq could come to the aid of Iran if that happens, so Bush will be taking a major risk with our fragile economy. Subprime will spill over, and this adventurism will become an albatross around our necks.

Gary Anderson said...

It is interesting that secretary Rice has the unabashed gall to say that Saddam is equal to Hitler, and that this is why we should continue in Iraq. Bush said that Iraq was equal to ww2. This rhetoric is something a sixth grader must reject. Who in their right minds can support people who dishonor our WW2 vets, and who underestimate that Hitler was unparalleled political evil. I just don't get how intelligent people can stomach this propaganda.

What kind of dialogue can we have with these people (Bush/Cheney/Rice) regarding security or anything else when they are willing to express such absurdities. It is my view that we just should pull the plug on the war. If I were in Iraq and I had leaders speaking such malarky I would be very very concerned.

Bush cannot be reasoned with, and in fact, he is on the level of the Iranian president with regard to logic and understanding. We have two idiots threatening civilization itself!! Comforting isn't it.