Posted by
on Friday, February 23, 2007 3:37:17 PM
I would like to address a Washington Times piece from today that displays the next tactic the Left is attempting to push through their defeatist strategy:
Senate Republicans today said the Democrats' latest idea to end the war in Iraq -- by "repealing" the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq -- still won't work because they remain unwilling to do the only thing they really can: cut funding.
"Congress has one clear cut responsibility with regard to combat, and that's funding. And that's the one thing the Democrats don't want to do. They want to dance around this thing," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. "That's the one thing they will absolutely not touch."
Mr. McConnell has planned an afternoon press conference.
Republicans think Democrats lack the 60 votes needed for a proposal being drafted by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, and Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat.
The Biden/Levin plan would replace the 2002 authorization "with a new, more limited authorization" that would take all combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008, a Biden aide said.
Change the AUMF? This is technically unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to declare war, not repeal such declarations. The only recourse they have is to cut the funding for the mission. They cannot usurp the president's "Commander-in-Chief" authority as enumerated under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. I am aware of no confliuct this nation has ever been in where Congress has attempted such a move. They did not try that in Vietnam. they simply cut the funding for the mission.
Furthermore, were they to try such a tactic, the initiative still has to go to the president for approval. He will not sign it; his veto pen will be ready, and I doubt the Democrats could muster the necessary two-thirds to override the president's veto. Even if they did manage to pull that off, the president's powers during wartime are explicit. He is the "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" and he is charged with the protection of the nation. The courts have NEVER questioned his national security authority (this was made evident in the NSA TSP issue). Yes, one judge did challenge the program, and the Sixth Circuit Court immediately stepped in and stayed that decision, pending a review (which they have yet to release).
Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Carl Levin; these people are not the president though they act like they are. They do not make the calls when it comes to our war effort. Their votes stand, and their only choice to end the war is to end the funding for it, which forces a withdrawal of troops. Additionally, the debates over this issue serve no purpose other than to send a message to the world that this nation's political establishment is divided -- one side wants our retreat and the other understands the gravity of the war, and what defeat means.
These people cannot simply change the tune because they dislike it. They paid their dime. We are in this war to win it, and protect this nation from the Islamofascist animals that want us dead. The Democrats may think that withdrawal and isolation will buy us some time, but it will not buy us security; and that time will be limited before they start attacking us and our interests again. For the Left, history started in January of 2001, and all the attacks up to that point are not relevant ot their thought process. For the rest of us, we understand that those attacks signalled to the nation we had an enemy in the world that wanted us dead. They hate us. And apparently, so do the Democrats, otherwise why would they be shrieking for a withdrawal; enabled by a number of "white-flag" Republicans that did not receive the right memo regarding the 2006 election defeat.
Should the Democrats mount this strategy of attemtpting to change the AUMF, they are in for a serious fight, and one that very well could end up in the USSC's chambers. The primary thing the Democrats miss is there is a difference between passing legislation, and authorizing or declaring war. Neither is the same, nor do they abide by the same rules. Once war has been declared, the Constitution kicks in and grants the president greater powers as Commander-in-Chief. Congress cannot simply go back, say "Our bad, we don't want this war," and "undeclare" it. It does not work that way.
Congress, especially the Democrats, forget that they do not bestow the powers of the presidency on George W. Bush. The Constitution does that, and they cannot trump the Constitution. They cannot legally pull the AUMF, and force a withdrawal. Senator McConnell is quite correct. This is grandstanding. They lack the intestinal fortitude to actually call for a vote to cut funds for the war. They are going to "dance around it" and pretend that they can do something which they cannot.
While we appreciate the urgency of Sabrina's pieces while we were on vacation regarding Jack Murtha's antics, he completely lacks the courage of his convictions. He can come up with whatever he wants in committee, but taking it to the floor is an entirely different matter. Add to the fact that he is not going to be the sole author of the defense appropriations. He still has others on that committee that he must answer to. His idea to bleed our mission slowly will not fly. We seriously doubt the president would sign such legislation that purposefully ties his hands, constrains the troops, and puts the overall mission in jeopardy.
Marcie