Craig Crawford's Trail Mix: GOP Lawmakers’ Stance on Iraq Still a Rhetorical Question

Craig Crawford's Trail Mix: GOP Lawmakers’ Stance on Iraq Still a Rhetorical Question

By Craig Crawford
19 minutes ago

Ever since Sen. John Warner of Virginia returned from Iraq last October and announced that the war was “drifting sideways,” he and other leading Republicans on Capitol Hill have gently drifted away from President George W. Bush.

It is still little more than drifting, despite the breathless reaction to Sen. Richard Lugar’s subtle floor speech on Monday.

The Indiana Republican and former Foreign Relations Committee chairman hardly abandoned the president as advertised — saying the current troop surge shows “very limited” prospect for success, but rejecting timetables for withdrawal in favor of what he called a “sustainable military posture.”

Lugar also emphasized that he had no plans for any legislation putting his words into action.

Clearly, these respected GOP leaders are trying to pressure the president to soften his stand, but until they start casting votes that make a real difference, Democrats running Congress cannot get the numbers they need to override vetoes — which is probably the only pressure that will ever force Bush to yield.

link

How To De-Fund The Escalation

Gareth Porter
January 16, 2007

<...>

The Democrats have gravitated toward a nonbinding resolution that would do nothing to force George W. Bush to bring the troops home. The Democratic haziness about the options available to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq is exemplified by presidential candidate Joe Biden’s comment last week that Congress can do nothing to stop the war, because, “It's unconstitutional to say, you can go, but we're going to micromanage.”

The Democrats’ real problem appears to be political rather than constitutional: They have convinced themselves that they cannot cut off funds without being accused of failing to keep faith with U.S. troops in Iraq.

<...>

Democrats have either forgotten the precedent for such legislation during the Vietnam War or have learned the wrong lesson from that precedent. An amendment offered by Democratic Senator George McGovern and Republican Mark Hatfield on September 1, 1970 would have cut off all funding for any U.S. combat activities in Vietnam after December 31, 1971—15 months after the date of the vote in the Senate. The amendment was defeated 55 to 39, and a House companion bill was defeated 254 to 158.

The Republican attack on the McGovern-Hatfield amendment and its sponsors was even more vicious than the Bush-Rove accusation of “cut and run” against the 2006 Democratic proposals for a timetable for withdrawal. But no one suggested during the debates that the amendment was unconstitutional, despite the fact that Congress had given blanket approval in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to “all necessary steps, including the use of armed force” to assist South Vietnam.

The fact that Congressional opponents of the war could not muster sufficient votes to pass those amendments has led some observers to conclude that such a legislative timetable for withdrawal should not be tried today. That view ignores the enormous differences between the situation faced by Congressional doves in 1970-72 and their present-day counterparts. Consider the following contrasts:

The Trend in Military Involvement. By the time McGovern-Hatfield was brought to a vote in September 1970, Nixon had already convinced most Americans that he was getting out of Vietnam, even if it was only to replace U.S. troops with Vietnamese. The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam had already fallen from 550,000 when Nixon took office to 225,000, and the withdrawal would have been completed in two more years at the monthly rate then being implemented.

Bush, on the other hand, has not only resisted the broad bipartisan recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton report to begin a military disengagement, but has proceeded to announce a plan for increasing U.S. troop strength. And he has done that in the face of advice against doing so by the U.S. military commanders who had been in Iraq since 2005.

<…>

The McGovern-Hatfield legislative approach to ending the U.S. war in Iraq—setting date for complete withdrawal after which no more funds can be used to carry on the war—is the weapon on the wall for American democracy. The American people are waiting for Congress to use it. And as George McGovern himself observed before the Progressive Caucus last week, if George Bush refused to carry out its provisions, that would clearly constitute an impeachable offense.

The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power “ declare War,” “o raise and support Armies,” “o provide and maintain a Navy,” and “o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” In addition, under Article I, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these provisions were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define, and ultimately, to end a war.

Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the President got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.”

-- Senator Feingold