Senators Assert Right to Block Bush’s Iraq Plan

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

A decent article, seems to slant more towards supporting the Dems but does make sure to cover both sides of the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30cnd-congress.html?hp&ex=1170219600&en=001783a7bfe4f5c3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Senators Assert Right to Block Bush’s Iraq Plan

By JOHN O’NEIL
Published: January 30, 2007

The Senate Judiciary Committee began laying the constitutional groundwork today for an effort to block President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq, or to put new limits on the conduct of the war there.

Democrats on the committee were joined by Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who led the panel for the last two years, in asserting that Mr. Bush cannot simply ignore Congressional opposition to his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

“I would respectfully suggest to the President that he is not the sole decider,” Mr. Specter said. “The decider is a joint and shared responsibility.”

Senator Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, acted as chairman for the hearing, and said he would soon introduce a resolution to block the funds needed for the troop increase. “Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policy in Iraq, Congress has a duty to stand up and prevent him,” Mr. Feingold said.

Mr. Feingold’s bill would go beyond a nonbinding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee last week, which expressed opposition to the troop increase. Many Democrats have shied away from a direct attempt to thwart the president’s strategy, and some Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have all but dared the war’s opponents to try cutting off financing, a move they believe would be seen as undermining the nation’s troops.

Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican of Utah, said that Congress must “consider not only our policy objectives, but what message we send by our actions.”

Mr. Hatch was repeatedly interrupted by a woman in the audience, who said that her son was a marine due to return soon to Iraq for his third tour of duty there. Mr. Bush’s plan calls for 4,000 additional marines to be deployed to Anbar province. “He can’t go back,” she said.

Mr. Hatch expressed sympathy, but went on to say that “some who say they support our troops turn around and talk about defunding them.

“The message to our troops is that we no longer support them,” he said.

Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, countered by citing news articles that said some of the new troops being sent to Iraq are going without adequate training or equipment. “Now who is standing behind the troops?” he asked.

Mr. Durbin suggested that Congress revisit the resolution it passed in 2002 authorizing the use of force in Iraq, since the prime reasons cited in it — the threats posed by Saddam Hussein and by weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was thought to possess — were no longer factors.

“By what authority do we continue this war?” he said.

Mr. Specter read the results of a survey of service members conducted by The Military Times, which found that only 35 percent of respondents approved of Mr. Bush’s handling of the war. The senator suggested that in that light, the military might be “appreciative of questions being raised by Congress.”

Mr. Feingold insisted that his resolution would “not hurt our troops in any way,” since it did not affect financing for troops already deployed.

The panel heard from legal experts, who cited constitutional debates over conflicts ranging from the “quasi-war” with Napoleon in 1798 to peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Somalia in recent years. No war seemed to hang more heavily over the hearing than Vietnam, where Congress brought American involvement to a close by cutting off financing.

Prof. Robert Turner of the University of Virginia suggested that Congress had made itself responsible for the deaths of the 1.7 million Cambodians estimated to have been slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge, by denying funds for President Nixon to wage war inside Cambodia. Similarly, he said Congress bore responsibility for the deaths of 241 marines killed by a suicide bomber in Lebanon in 1983 because it raised the question of forcing a withdrawal there.

Other experts testifying at the hearing said that Congress had the power not only to declare war, but to make major strategic and policy decisions about its conduct. Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law for the Library of Congress, said, “I don’t know of any ground for a belief that the president has any more special expertise in whether to continue a war than do the members of Congress.”

He said that the title of “commander in chief” was meant by the framers to emphasize unity of command and civilian control over the military. “The same duty commanders have to the president, the president has to the elected representatives.”

Walter Dellinger, once a top Justice Department official under President Clinton and now a professor of law at Duke University, said that “Congress does not have an all or nothing choice,” and can “validly limit the presidential use of force.”

An example of unconstitutional Congressional interference, he said, would be an effort to force the president to choose certain generals.

But a resolution of the sort described by Senator Feingold would be “fully within Congress’s powers,” he said, since it would provide “not one penny less” for troops now in engaged combat, but would set limits on where other troops could be deployed.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rhys 0]

And who said nothing could be done about GWB!

huh.

Now do you see him as a murderer and a dictator?

People like Senator Russell Feingold can save the reputation of the United States govornment.

GWB has a chance to admit he was wrong or more likely will dig himself into a large hole that will shame him and his family for generations.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

GWB has a chance to admit he was wrong or more likely will dig himself into a large hole that will shame him and his family for generations.

Since he has ordered more shovels, digging is obviously what he has in mind.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,075]

>People like Senator Russell Feingold can save the reputation of the
> United States govornment.

He can't do it alone; it will take all of congress (or at least a majority) to end this. That's their job anyway, per the constitution. James Madison had a good take on this:

"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."

[jumprunner 0]

Quote

And who said nothing could be done about GWB!

huh.

Now do you see him as a murderer and a dictator?

People like Senator Russell Feingold can save the reputation of the United States govornment.

A murderer, a dictator, a liar, and a complete backwards thinking dumbass. Bush is nothing less than a complete embarassment to this country and everything it has ever stood for. That idiot is not my president and never has been, so I never refer to him as the president since he is not, just 'that dumbass in the Whitehouse' will do.

Sorry to say it, but I think that dumbass in the Whitehouse may just win this one. From what I gather, Congress can only limit funding for the war, and the general consensus is that they wont. Even if they do limit funding, the dumbass in the Whitehouse can veto it, and there isnt enough of a majority in Congress to override his veto.

In short, I believe Bush will get his way, more troops will be sent regardless of the overwhelming opposition from Congress and the public, and the war will go on and on indefinitely without any end to it.

The hole is dug.

[shropshire 0]

There's a plan?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

There's a plan?

"This hole is really deep. Send more shovels"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,075]

>"This hole is really deep. Send more shovels"

I prefer "man, this fire is out of control. Quick, add more logs."

[downwardspiral 0]

I think we have a better chance at coming up with a viable solution to the Iraq conflict by hosting an American Idol style contest involving "solutions." Congress narrows the field down to the last 10 finalists then the American public calls in their vote for their favorite plan but only after they have passed a test demonstrating a knowledge of the region, the conflict, its history, large scale military tactics, and diplomacy.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think we have a better chance at coming up with a viable solution to the Iraq conflict by hosting an American Idol style contest involving "solutions." Congress narrows the field down to the last 10 finalists then the American public calls in their vote for their favorite plan but only after they have passed a test demonstrating a knowledge of the region, the conflict, its history, large scale military tactics, and diplomacy.

about 0.5% will have real ideas and make it past the initial tryouts. 99.5% will be mocked for their ignorance and shrieking

make it simple though, anyone that posts here would be automatically mocked and rejected for the sake of efficiency

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,075]

>I think we have a better chance at coming up with a viable
>solution to the Iraq conflict by hosting an American Idol style
>contest involving "solutions."

The unemployed mother of 5 who plans an inflatable, inpenetrable "peace wall" around Iraq would win just from the sympathy vote alone.