Redstate

though there are plenty afield on the right

By haystack Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Apparently America's Mother-In-Law™ was holding court yesterday with, among others, members of VoteVets - a "pressure group of Iraq war veterans opposed to Bush’s strategy"(find your own link).

Nance was chillin' with her homeys up in the crib and talking up their next round of assault on the Troops and their mission.

Present and accounted for were Steny Hoyer and Okinawa Jack along with "several other senior Democrats", and they were right in the middle of hammering out the details of putting together a new "resolution that is “as clean and straightforward as possible”, when along came a spider that sat down beside her:

Democrats had wanted to advance the Iraq discussion further on Tuesday, when they gathered for their weekly meeting, but it was cut short because Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) made an appearance to talk about Hurricane Katrina.

ANOTHER shiny object which stirs BushSlamming™ enthusiasm! Ahh, good times....good times.

Approacheth the reading comprehension quiz...how many lies can you find (I mean untruths) in this passage?

Pelosi told reporters that a measure condemning the president’s plan to “escalate” the war in Iraq while expressing support for U.S. troops would be Congress’s first step in reasserting its role in conducting the war in Iraq.

More below the fold...

The measures, so far being pimped, do NOT condemn the President, his plan does NOT escalate the war, the proposals being bandied about DO verbally express support of the Troops, and Congress does NOT have a role in conducting war.

From Article II, Section 2 of OUR Constitution (or, for Nance, "The HitchHiker's Guide: Hints, Tips, and Suggestions for Large-Scale Governance"):

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

That is all, and there is no more. Congress having some modicum of input and or control over where and when troops of whichever branch may from time to time be deployed into regions of the Commander's choosing is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

The framers intended it to be this way, for some very well thought out reasons.

Consider David B. Rivkin (a name you'll be hearing more of soon) in a piece at WaPo back in January:

The Framers did not establish a parliamentary system.

This does not mean, of course, that Congress is powerless. It could -- if the leadership mustered veto-proof majorities -- immediately cut off funding for U.S. operations in Iraq.
[...]
Under our constitutional system, however, the power to cut off funding does not imply the authority to effect lesser restrictions, such as establishing benchmarks or other conditions on the president's direction of the war. Congress cannot, in other words, act as the president's puppet master, and so long as currently authorized and appropriated funding lasts, the president can dispatch additional troops to Iraq with or without Congress's blessing.

The precise line between congressional and presidential authority is sometimes unclear, and no court has jurisdiction to rule on the issue. The analysis, however, is straightforward. When the two political branches exercise their respective constitutional powers in a way that brings them into conflict -- a scenario clearly envisioned by the Framers -- the relevant constitutional principle is that neither branch can vitiate the ability of the other to discharge its core constitutional responsibilities.

Just as the president cannot raise his own funds (by obtaining loans unauthorized by Congress, for example), the legislature cannot attach conditions to federal spending that would destroy the president's authority to direct the military's tactical and strategic operations. This balance makes perfect sense; if Congress could closely direct how the executive branch spends appropriated funds, it would vitiate the president's core responsibilities as chief executive and commander in chief, transforming him into a cipher. This outcome would fundamentally warp the Framers' entire constitutional fabric.
[...]
Although this system may seem unsatisfactory to those who disagree with President Bush's Iraq policy, it has two great virtues. First, it bolsters the Constitution's fundamental design -- the separation of powers between the coequal branches of government.

The Framers vested executive authority in a president for a reason. As Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers: "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks." Second, requiring Congress to exercise its power in dramatic ways ensures political accountability. If Congress believes the war is lost, or not worth winning, it must take responsibility for the consequences of forcing a U.S. withdrawal. Otherwise, it must leave the president to direct the war and to bear responsibility for the decisions he has made and will make.

While it may be true that some in Congress NOW have buyer's remorse from both sides of the aisle, and while their remorse MAY be motivated in part on their assumption that their re-election prospects hinge on being on the POPULAR side of this issue (not necessarily the RIGHT one), every single thing they say and do is pointless.

All that can be accomplished with every taxpayer funded wasted moment of their time is political cover.

In a piece by Helle Dale over at Heritage, we are reminded of a time in the not-too-distant-past, where Congress DID in fact exercise its power within the limits of the Constitution as Rivkin discussed:

The United States is at a critical juncture in its history. Once again the U.S. Congress appears to be on the verge of deciding whether a war will be won or lost. While true in the long run that the Iraq war could be won or lost in Iraq, it could also be lost on the home front if Congress persists in passing resolutions undercutting or limiting the President's ability to conduct the war.

The U.S. has been here before. The outcome last time around is a sobering history lesson all Members of Congress should consider as they think about where they come down on the Iraq resolutions.

The year was 1974, and a Democratic Congress, upset with the Ford White House for pardoning Richard Nixon, decided that it was time to punish the new administration with all of the power that it had accumulated during the Watergate scandal. Beginning with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, after all U.S. troops had left Vietnam, Congress cut off all U.S. funding to the South Vietnamese government--cutting off its ability to buy the weapons it needed to protect itself. It would eventually succumb to the North Vietnamese Army in 1975, setting off a series of Communist victories around the world, as well as the slaughter of millions in neighboring Cambodia.

As Dale suggests in her closing argument:

The government of South Vietnam did not have to fall. There was nothing preordained in history that this had to happen. Rather, it was in part the result of actions taken by the U.S. Congress, the consequences of which could have been easily predicted. Are Americans going to stand by and watch Congress make the same mistake again--with the same predictable consequences in terms of loss of human life and the enormous political damage done to U.S. credibility and position in the world?

Once was enough. Congress should consider George Santayana's warning that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. If there ever was a time when this warning should be heeded, it is now.

I would add here that an extra piece of history stands ready to be repeated. The effects on the Soldiers and their families, the disrespect and disdain for them and their service and sacrifice that was borne of Congressional action motivated solely for the sake of Political expediency, and the shame our Political Heroes brought home for us all to bear should never be forgotten.

Nor should it be forgotten that, while the Cold War was eventually won many years later, after the unnecessary and tragic loss of countless hundreds of thousands of lives, it was won by a President with vision and strength of will and a single-minded courage of his convictions.

This man did these things because he didn't allow Congress to usurp the powers intentionally separated from them in deference to that which the framers intended for the Commander in Chief alone.