Will Congress Finally Dare To Tell Bush No?
For more than four years, President Bush has controlled every aspect of the war in Iraq. For more than four years, a docile Congress has given the president every penny he has sought to fight the so-called “war on terror” — the total is more than $400 billion — and it has allowed him to spend that money as he saw fit.
The results have been disastrous, as most Americans now recognize. In a Newsweek poll taken earlier this month, 69 percent of Americans said they disapprove of how the president has handled the war, and given the gross incompetence at war-fighting demonstrated by this administration, you have to wonder at the 27 percent who believe he has done well.
If this is a good performance, what on earth would a bad one look like?
Never one to be cowed by mere reality, President Bush is now insisting that Congress appropriate another $100 billion for the war, demanding that it cough up the money “with no strings attached.” He wants the money, in other words, but he wants it with no input or interference from Congress in how it is spent.
Well, no. The answer to that demand should be no. And Congress may at last be willing to say that word to the president.
Last week, the House passed an emergency appropriations bill giving the president all the funds he requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but with the proviso that U.S. combat troops be withdrawn from Iraq by August 2008. That’s still 17 months away, far from an immediate pullback.
The Senate is apparently ready to pass its own version of the funding bill, again with every penny requested by the president, but again with a set of restrictions and requirements on how it can be spent. If a fragile Senate coalition holds together in support of that approach, the stage will be set for a constitutional showdown the likes of which we haven’t seen for a generation, or maybe ever.
If the schedule holds, the House and Senate bills will be reconciled into one piece of legislation and sent to the president’s desk sometime in late April, about the time the Pentagon will start running short of money. President Bush will then veto the bill, keeping his promise to reject legislation that in any way hamstrings his authority to fight the war any way he wishes, for as long as he wishes.
Judging from his public statements, the president is almost eager for that showdown.
“If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines,” he said in a speech Wednesday, “the American people will know who to hold responsible.”
He’s right about one thing — the issue will then be in the hands of the American people. Their reaction to a standoff between Congress and the president, with troops overseas fighting and dying, will determine whether the president or Congress blinks first, and thus whether this war will be allowed to continue at high levels for the rest of Bush’s term.
In 1995, when President Clinton and a Republican Congress couldn’t come to a budget agreement and large parts of the federal government were forced to shut down, it was Congress that took most of the blame, and Congress that was ultimately forced to cave in.
This time the outcome may be different, not least because the ‘95 showdown was almost inconsequential compared to what’s at stake in this conflict.
This time, large majorities of Americans support giving Congress a voice in the war, which is basically all that congressional leaders are now seeking. The American people understand that the president is trying to deny Congress a role guaranteed to it by the Constitution, and that while Congress is willing to negotiate, it is the president who stubbornly refuses to compromise.
If Congress can force the president to negotiate, it ought to be possible for the two branches to work out a timetable that allows the current surge of troops to play itself out, for better or worse. It ought to be possible to agree that if the escalation proves beneficial and if the Iraqi army and government show real progress by this fall, U.S. troops can be sustained as long as that progress continues.
But it also ought to be possible to agree that if the civil war continues to rage, and if the Iraqi government fails to live up to its responsibilities, our troops can begin to come home, leaving enough manpower behind to ensure that outsiders don’t rush to fill the vacuum we leave behind.
All of that ought to be possible, but only if Congress dares to tell the president no.
Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Thursdays and Mondays.
© 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
What is wrong with congress? As far as I know Cheney is not yet in a position to send blackwater troops to their homes if they speak up. If they remain silent much longer that prospect may become a reality.
Though Jay Bookman means well, he’s terribly wrong in several respects. In his last 2 paragraphs, he writes, ” It ought to be possible to agree that if the escalation proves beneficial and if the Iraqi army and government show real progress by this fall, U.S. troops can be sustained as long as that progress continues… But it also ought to be possible to agree that if the civil war continues to rage, and if the Iraqi government fails to live up to its responsibilities, our troops can begin to come home…”
These sentences are based on major misconceptions — essentially, US government lies & propaganda about the war. There is nothing that could possibly be “beneficial” about the surge, because what it really is, is an attempt by the US govt to control Iraq’s oil by military force, and to destroy anyone getting in the way of that. Words like “beneficial” and “progress” here actually mean crushing all Iraqi resistance to US domination (in which case, from the viewpoint of the US media, the “civil war” would appear to subside).
Secondly, the phrase about the Iraqi govt failing to live up to its responsibilities is pure hooey. That govt is largely a US-installed puppet; its so-called “responsibilities” are simply the tasks which the US overseers demand of their puppet. Essentially, we are demanding that Maliki help us crush all elements in Iraq who oppose US domination of the country — just as we demanded of our puppets in Vietnam.
Finally, Bookman seems to accept the US govt lie about the main problem being “sectarian violence” and “civil war.” Yes, those things exist — but it was US policy that deliberately inflamed them. Our invasion first disenfranchised the Sunnis; this was part of de-Baathification. Then, when Sunni opposition got so strong that it was too hard to maintain security, we started tilting back towards them, & threatening some Shia groups, in certain respects. The US media try to spin the civil war as being the Iraqis’ fault. Like the rest of the mess over there, it’s actually the fault of the US, which has ruthlessly sought to exploit ethnic divisions, in its bid to gain control.
There is only one thing worse than the Bush/Cheney cabal in the US, and that is Congress.
Congress was given the mandate by we the people to end this illegal war, but the only way Congress signed onto the bill was to add $28 billion in pork fat! Congress is not listening to we the people, but as always, these self-serving smucks are looing only to 2008.
Bush has every right to veto the emergency war funding bill, because of all the non-war related earmarked funds added by the spineless POS Congress.
We have to accept some of the political realities that we face. I absolutely agree that Congress should pull the purse strings shut on this war! But what we have now is a bill that might actually get to Shrub’s desk for his veto. My guess is that Americans are going to be outraged that Bush won’t listen to the Congress (and the people in this case) and make an effort to get the hell out of Iraq. My hope is that it will go back to Congress and they will figure out that they can’t go back on their vote on the current funding bill, so they will come up with a bill that will fund ONLY withdrawal. No time table. Withdrawal only! Well, I can dream can’t I?…
By the way, if you want to sleep tonight, go on over to robertdreyfuss.com and read “Iraq: Pulled Out or Pushed Out”. The Iraqis may just beat Congress to the punch by demanding that U.S. troops pull out NOW! Cool….Bob’s other article that might interest you is “Apocalypse Not?”. It’s a good arguement against the stupid prognostications of horror if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq.
So go. Make your day with some very educational articles.
THERE WILL BE A QUIZ WHEN YOU GET BACK!!
“…President Bush is now insisting that Congress appropriate another $100 billion for the war, demanding that it cough up the money “with no strings attached.””
Strings are only acceptable when Bush and gang can use them to “string” the rest of us along. This is a President who doesn’t want any advice or rules of law to interfere with his irrational war and spending.
And Jay, it’s going to cost Halliburton a lot of money to move to Dubai. If there are strings attached to this bill, Congress might actually want to conduct oversight as to how this money is being allocated…..and that could certainly put a damper on how Bush and gang intend on spending it.
Where is your PATRIOTISM?
Congress needs to not only take charge of the occupation of Iraq, but also launch a wide range of inquiries and legislative actions related to the activities of the Bush-Cheney administration.
Corruption, war profiteering, phony intelligence … the list goes on.
For more on this, see:
“A serious Congressional inquiry on Iraq is necessary”
PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America
December 24, 2006
http://www.populistamerica.com/a_serious_congressional_inquiry_on_iraq_is_necessary
Indictments?
rebel farmer,waiting for the Quiz? More indictments?
Could Bush agree now to an August ‘08 deadline, then ignore it when the crunch comes. After all, there would only be a couple of months to the election so why would he care? As always he would leave it to someone else to clean up his mess.
No more funding should be allowed, there is enough money already to bring all military and others out.
When are the American people going to dare to say no? They should have already done it, in 2000 and 2004. Now, it’s too late, the damage is done. When is this country gonna grow some balls, like the folks in Central America and Europe? I guess never, or it would have happened already.
It doesn’t mattter if Bush gets what he has requested or not. There are $100’s of billions of avaiable funds at the Department of Defense right now. All these various “pots” of money are designated for various weapons systems, base closures, base expansions, personnel benefits, etc, etc. I know this to be true by direct experince. I haven’t the slightest doubt that Bush would use executive orders based on national emergency to requisition these funds. Bush will have to work at it but can he fund his war up to January 2009 without Congress? No question and he’ll try to sqeeze every political advantage out of the situation that he can. What we watching now in Washington is a meaningless kabuki dance.