Hugh starts us off today by pointing out this story in the WaPo:After weeks of delay, Democratic leaders yesterday managed to bring to the Senate floor for the first time a binding resolution that would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. But Republicans remained confident that they could kill the proposal, and the White House threatened a veto, raising constitutional concerns.
Democrats want the new proposal to supersede the 2002 resolution that authorized the Iraq invasion. It would restrict troop movements and set March 31, 2008, as a target date for bringing the troops home.All fine and dandy, but the White House has made it perfectly clear that this sort of a move is unconstitutional, and unprecedented. Additionally, it would harm the overall war effort, and not just the ongoing tactics in Iraq:
The resolution "infringes upon the constitutional authority of the President as Commander in Chief by imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat," the White House statement said. "The legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war on terror."
For those on the Left that still do not seem to comprehend what "presidential power" is, and what it entails, please, allow the sensible adults in this debate to cite Article II, Section 2 which specifically details such things:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
The president is commander-in-chief, not the Congress. Congress's power in a war is explained in Article I, Section 8 which explains the scope of their power:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
Now the appropriations part may have changed over the years (it is now an anual appropriation instead of once every two years), but the powers listed above are all that Congress has to do with ANY war this nation is in. They declare it. They fund it, and defund it. But, as numerous pundits have stated, re-stated, and re-re-stated (Thomas and I among them), those in Congres right now refuse to do such a thing. They refuse to take the only step left to them, which is cutting off the funds. The reason why is dirt simple: They are afraid of the backlash that will -- not might, but will -- occur from the electorate.
They cannot undeclare this war. They cannot set benchmarks or timetables. They have but one option open to them, and that is to cut the funds. But as that is a revenue bill, it would have to pass the president's desk, and I doubt it will make it. Besides, the Democrats lack the veto-proof majority in Congress. Two-thirds of BOTH Houses must override his veto. Harry Reid barely has a majority in the Senate (and the GOP is feeling heat from the grass-roots people, like those at the Victory Caucus, so I doubt he can muster the other nine votes he needs), and Nancy Pelosi keeps having a problem with her dogs in the form of the Blue Dog Democrats in the House who keep cutting her and Jack Murtha off at the knees.
They are definitely in a pickle on this one. They continue to try and satisfy the antiwar fever-swamp, but they lack the power to do so. They have this elevated sense of themselves (call it nuanced if you wish; we refer to it as self-destructive narcissism) that they alone can control and command this war. That is not the way it happens, and they know it. They also know that the president, as commander-in-chief, can simply blow them off. They cannot defund the war because the legislation must pass presidential muster, which it will not. They cannot undeclare it. They are stuck with this until the job is done. And every time they step up to the plate with a new idea on how to micro-manage the war, they will get shot down, again.
Marcie
UPDATE: The Senate GOP defeated the Democrat effort 50-48:
The Senate today rejected a binding Democratic-sponsored resolution that would have set a target date a little more than a year from now for the withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops from Iraq. Senators then approved by large margins two nonbinding resolutions that express support for the troops.
The withdrawal resolution, which under a Senate agreement needed 60 votes to pass, failed to win even a majority, with 48 senators voting in favor of it and 50 against it. The White House had threatened a veto if such a binding measure reached President Bush's desk.
Congratulations to Mitch McConnell for leading a well-executed counterattack to the Democrats continued attempts to undermine the president and the efforts abroad.
Marcie