But This Time We're Serious, Sort Of

by publius

Let me tell you a story. It’s about three moderate, highly conscientious Senate Republicans who felt conflicted about the course of the administration’s anti-terrorism policy. They aired their anguish to the press. They appeared on the Sunday talk shows. The media exclaimed that this was a turning point -- a true revolt from Senate Republicans whose consciences simply could not let them endure the administration’s failed policies any longer. Pundits -- myself included -- praised them. Angry liberals had gotten it wrong -- there were still conservatives of conscience who opposed torture, who respected the Geneva Convention.

Until they folded. Yes, it's true. Those highly conscientious Senators eventually signed on to legalizing torture and to decimating the Geneva Convention -- one of them being a torture victim himself.

It is with this background in mind that I read about the torn, anguished Senators like Snowe and Collins and (again) Warner. Here’s the gentleman from Virginia:

Yet key Republican senators have indicated that they would not be satisfied with a change in political spin over a real change in strategy. In a speech on the Senate floor after a White House meeting yesterday, John W. Warner (R-Va.) set the tone, declaring this "a time in our history unlike any I have ever witnessed before."

I’m not sure exactly what happened in between today and the emergency supplemental a few weeks ago, but that’s not the point. The point is that Warner is anguished, torn, upset, and demanding change.

Look – I’m really tired of reading these stories. I’ve watched for roughly three years now as key Republicans voice concerns here and there to Tim Russert and then do exactly nothing about it. And let’s be clear -- Senators Lugar, Domenici, and Voinovich have done exactly nothing to change the course of this war. When push comes to shove -- when it’s time to vote Yea or Nay -- they have consistently supported endless war with no accountability.

If they want to vote to require a withdrawal of at least some of the troops, then I’ll listen. But until then, I don’t think they should have the benefit of the “torn, conscientious Senators” narrative in the media. They are the Iraq War, every bit as responsible as Bush. They are coming around now because they are feeling political pressure. Period. Time and time again they’ve had the opportunity to show their principles, and they have declined to do so. Actions matter, not words.

That’s why the Democrats should hold the line and avoid all these “sense of the Senate” compromises that meekly suggest what Bush should do if he’s so inclined. These Senators had their chance -- and will have another one soon -- to actually do something to force change. Only the votes matter -- it doesn’t matter what Warner’s chief of staff tells Peter Baker, nor does it matter what Senator Snowe says on TV.

Until that day comes, spare me the public anguish.

Comments

[hilzoy]

Yep. I want votes for measures with teeth. In their absence, I have to conclude that one of two things is true:

(a) These Senators have not yet figured out that Bush will not do anything he doesn't want to do on Iraq unless he is forced, or

(b) They are just playing games.

I generally think it's a variant of (a) -- I don't think Snowe or Warner are liars. I suspect they just can't wrap their minds around the fact that what works in any normal administration -- senior Senators go to the President, inform him they can't support his policy, he changes -- just Does Not Work with George W. Bush. He doesn't care about the party, he doesn't care about his ability to work with Congress; I frankly don't know what he does care about.

But not having figured out that normal procedures have been rendered inoperative is no excuse. After all, they've seen him up close and personal for six years now.

[publius]

i think (a) is too generous to them though. it makes it seem as if they're slow, or not perceptive. a different version of (a) is just that they're cowards.

Harsh, yes. but it's hard to come up a better word for continuing to enable not just war, but UNCHANGING, UNENDING WAR, if you think it's a lost cause or a mistake.

[KCinDC]

No mention of the man whose name has become a verb for the action of posing as the Independent Republican of Integrity and then caving in to Bush when it comes time to vote? All these senators are just spectering.

[S Brennan]

C'mon Pub,

Demos are pulling the same limp crap.

They know Bush can not legally give Libby a reprieve due to Section 2. - Article. II - U.S. Constitution:

"...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT."

The framers also knew that Presidents would want to cover up crimes of their administration so they did not specify which "civil officer" was to be impeached. as Section 4. - Article II - U.S. Constitution makes clear:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Frankly Pub, the Demos are trying to have it both ways, they will not impeach because they claim it could "backfire". Well hell, that is just as political as trying to impeach because of a blow-job.

Frankly, the Washington Democrats disgust me.

[xanax]

"He doesn't care about the party, he doesn't care about his ability to work with Congress; I frankly don't know what he does care about." hilzoy @12:40

What does he care about?

[alphie]

The emergency supplemental bill funded the Iraq War through September 30 of this year.

The Senate is currently debating the FY2008 Defense bill, which contains enough money to fund the Iraq war through September 30, 2008!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.1585:

Not sure why the press and anti-war blogs haven't managed to convey the simple fact that the debate currently going on in the Seante is the last chance for the Congress to use the power of the purse to influence the Iraq war during Bush's time in office.

The House caved on next year's Iraq funding, voting 397-27 for it.

Thanks, Nancy.

Anyhoo, if this bill passes, any "review" of progress in Iraq this coming September will just be political theater of the lowest order, Bush will have already cashed the check.

[G'Kar]

Today's question, one for which I do not have a good answer: if the Senate manages to pass a defense appropriations bill that does not provide enough funding to continue the U.S. presence in Iraq through FY2008 and the President simply refuses to order the troops home, what then? I'm thinking of Teddy Roosevelt's decision to send the Great White Fleet out with enough coal to make it halfway around the world, then daring Congress to not appropriate enough to get them back. Given the President's powers as Commander in Chief (an excellent subject for amendment in my opinion, but unlikely to make it through the process given the tenor of Congress), how does Congress stop a war short of cutting off troops overseas and living with those consequences?

Again, I don't have a good answer on this one. It is a frustrating and unfortunate problem to have, yet it seems that is precisely the problem we do have. And I cannot see a good solution for it; I am still puzzling out which solution would be least bad without great success.

[alphie]

There's $96 billion for Iraq in the FY2008 Defense bill, G'Kar.

That outta do her.

[Spartacvs]

G'kar

Every time Bush and his Administration defies Congress on this and sundry other matters, he risks the I word.

The consensus after the Clinton impeachment would appear to be that Impeachment is a 'one shot must kill weapon', equally as dangerous to those holding it as to its intended victim. But, given the public consensus against continuation of the current Iraq policy I would disagree. At some point the President's stubborn refusal to shift will make impeachment by the House a foregone conclusion, requiring little more than a roll call vote. At that point future policy in Iraq will hinge on the outcome of the Presidents trial in the Senate. I predict nothing less than such a scenario will have much effect on the current policy as determined by this President.

To have an impeachment by the House on record will do much to enhance history's view of the current Congress and its attempt to rescue the nation from an unwinnable war. Conversely the threat to Bush's legacy, carrying as it would the unflattering comparison to his predecessor, might be the one thing that could force Bush himself to change course or to change enough minds in the Senate to enable a deal to finally change the policy in Iraq short of the Presidents removal and the legacy of an even more unflattering comparison to Nixon that would hand the Republican party.

[CharleyCarp]

The proper comparison, in such things, is not between half a loaf and a whole loaf, but between half a loaf and nothing. I'd much rather have Warner, Lugar et al publicly breaking with the policy, and, among all but the blindly ideological, defanging the dissent equals freedom meme, than have them sit silent.

You go to political discussion with the Republicans you have, not the Republicans you want to have.

Now, I'm not interested in canonizing these people, and the press reaction on the torture thing last fall was worse than pathetic. Still, better Specter than Santorum, to echo the verb-ization of the former above

TPM nailed Bush's agenda, imo: he's waiting for a parade. And a hard core of his supporters are clinging white knuckled to even the slimmest hope that the damn dirty hippies won't end up being proven right. Again.

[trian]

The Dem's control the purse... they won't even vote to defund the war. Perhaps you should focus more time on your friends than worrying about Republicans.

Granted they Democrats are pretty busy being corrupt.

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) paid a Washington law firm more than $22,000 during the past three months, according to his most recent campaign finance report.

Last year, the FBI reportedly investigated whether the congressman had properly disclosed his real estate investment with a West Virginia businessman whose company received a $2.1 million contract with the federal government earmarked by Mollohan.

Mollohan paid the Washington law firm Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel $22,671 in three installments from the middle of May to the end of June, according to Federal Election Commission filings released Tuesday.

Mollohan's office did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

Mollohan, who chairs a prominent subcommittee on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, was forced to relinquish his position as the ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee in 2006 amid revelations surrounding lucrative real estate investments, including one with a former aide-turned-lobbyist, and questions about his connection to a series of nonprofit groups in West Virginia that had received millions in federal funding.

[KCinDC]

What's with the name change, bril? Trying to get around a ban?

[Johnny Pez]

Granted they Democrats are pretty busy being corrupt.

You are Bril and I claim my five pounds.

[Tim]

Given the President's powers as Commander in Chief (an excellent subject for amendment in my opinion, but unlikely to make it through the process given the tenor of Congress), how does Congress stop a war short of cutting off troops overseas and living with those consequences?

They've got more mercenaries over there than actual soldiers. Cut off those funds. Should be entertaining to see if Blackwater will work for free.

[hilzoy]

Good catch, everyone. It was bril. Bye bye!

[LizardBreath]

Given the President's powers as Commander in Chief (an excellent subject for amendment in my opinion, but unlikely to make it through the process given the tenor of Congress), how does Congress stop a war short of cutting off troops overseas and living with those consequences?

Dude, if the President has the power, as Commander in Chief, to strand our troops overseas without funding to pay or supply them, he has the full responsibility for the consequences. Do you really think there's any prospect of Congress refusing to provide funds for withdrawal as necessary?

[freelunch]

I would love to see Warner and a few others interrogating Blackwater, KBR and the rest of the mercenary crew.

[freelunch]

LizardBreath:

If Congress mandates withdrawal and Bush refuses, it would be utterly spineless of Congress not to impeach and convict him in one day.

[G'Kar]

Liz,

Dude? Wow...dude...hm.

Anyhow, I don't disagree that the President would bear the responsibility for failing to withdraw the troops. But I am less sanguine that Congress would be willing to take that chance given the bully pulpit the President occupies. The TR example I gave was quite real: Congress told him that they would not authorize him to send the fleet, and he did it anyhow. Congress caved then. I have seen little evidence to suggest that Congress would not cave again. Is that not what largely drove the President's success in forcing Congress not to attach strings to the 2007 supplemental?

In answer to your last question, I do not believe there is any prospect of Congress not providing funds for withdrawal. My concern is whether or not the President would, in fact, begin withdrawals if ordered to do so by Congress, and if he did not, whether or not Congress would stand firm. Freelunch's assessment may be correct, but I have seen little evidence of Congressional spine to date.

To try and be clearer: if Congress were to mandate withdrawal and the President were to refuse, we have a big game of chicken. Who would blink first? My concern is that the institutional strengths the presidency holds make it likely Congress would blink first. I think this is bad, but I'm uncertain how to fix the problem.

[Michael Cain]

I generally think it's a variant of (a)...

Have to disagree with you here. They've had six years to figure out what Bush is about. They're playing games, because they're tied to the Republican Party, and are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one side is the growing unhappiness of the voters; on the other side, they're still scared of what Karl Rove and Co. can do to them. So they play games, and try to keep anything from really happening.

[LizardBreath]

Sorry, my response was a little flip. I was trying to address your use of the words 'living with the consequences'. If all you meant by that is that under the circumstances you describe (Congress defunds the war; the President refuses to order the troops home; the troops suffer from lack of funding) Congress would be unreasonably blamed for the President's unilateral decision to strand our troops overseas without funding, and that it's perfectly possible they don't have the political will to stand up to the prospect of such politicized attacks, I absolutely agree with you.

If the idea is that such attacks would be justified, on the other hand, I've got to disagree quite strongly.

[Eric Martin]

I agree with Michael Cain. I think "(a)" was much more plausible four, five years ago. Even three years ago. Or two.

But the MO of this administration is clear now. Especially to Senators who have been working with Bush et al. They know, in more intimate detail, what his style is like than most of us.

[G'Kar]

Liz,

My intent was to address the former. It seems clear enough to me that if Congress can declare a war, it can undeclare a war, and if the President refuses to acede to their lawful power then they have every right to impeach him and the President should receive all blame for anything untoward that happens to the troops due to his intransigence.

My concern is that functionally, because it is a) very difficult for Congress to undeclare war since it would have to override a Presidential veto (I think...since Congress has sole power to declare war, perhaps this isn't the case?) and b) because American politics is driven almost solely by demagoguery Congress certainly would be accused of harming the troops by refusing to fund them if the President refused to bring them home and would therefore likely cave, we are faced with a situation where the President has far more power than the Constitution ever intended him to have, for he can maintain war nigh-indefinitely.

[Morat20]

G'Kar:

What you are describing is, in fact, troops held hostage to the President's whim. If that's effecttively the case, if I were a military man I'd be more than a little unhappy with that state of affairs.

If I were a betting man, I'd be betting on Bush getting his way because the consensus seems to be that Bush doesn't actually care what the cost is as long as it happens his way.

If I were a Democrat, and voted to end funding for the war -- I'd fully fund the withdrawal. I'd have the money appropriated and sitting there, waiting to be used for the planning, and withdrawal of US troops -- and subject ANYONE trying to use it for any other purpose to the highest possible sanctions I could think of. And then I'd mention very specifically that I'd start with charging generals, political appointees, and civil servants for violating it.

If Bush tried to force the issue -- offer a blanket pardon to anyone misusing the funding, deciding to starve the troops out -- I'd impeach him or call his bluff.

If he wants to argue the troops aren't funded, I want to see him do it in the face of full and already authorized funding for withdrawal. And then we'll see what the public believes.

[G'Kar]

Morat,

Um...yes, that's exactly what I'm describing. And if anything in my prior comments led you to believe that I am in any way pleased with that situation, please rest assured that I am describing the problem because, well, because I see it as a problem. What you would do if you were a Democrat is great, but since you're not, we need to deal with the Congress we have, and I have yet to see any evidence that Congress will stand up against this kind of Presidential bullying. In one sense, this is actually admirable; the average Congressman isn't willing to let the troops suffer without funding because the President has hung them out to dry. Unfortunately, since they aren't willing to do so, that means the President can continue the conflict indefinitely. Again, this is a problem, and I think that the U.S. Constitution requires some structural reform to fix it, but I'm not sure what to do about it in the short run.

[LizardBreath]

It's funny -- talking about it as a structural problem with the Constitution is right, but it's hard to fix because the problem isn't in the wording of the Constition itself, it's in the insupportably broad interpretation of the words Commander in Chief.

Perhaps a one-line amendment noting that the Executive's obligation to carry out and obey the laws extends to the military realm, and that therefore in any conflict between the Executive and Congress about military action, Congress retains its authority to direct the Executive's actions.

(And sorry about initially misinterpreting you, G'Kar.)

[G'Kar]

Liz,

You were far from alone; it seems I need more work on my written communication skills.

I would like to see the power to declare war given more teeth, as well. The President should not be allowed to use military force without prior Congressional approval, except possibly in a very few cases. Even then, I'm reluctant to grant any exceptions to the rule, because I'm confident future Presidents would use those exceptions to justify whatever it is they wanted to do. As a wise man once noted, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, so I'm confident that in a case where the President really, truly, just had to use military force without Congressional approval, Congress would let it slide. Other than that, however, it ought to be very simple: President wants to use military force, President first goes to Congress and gets approval, no ifs, ands, or buts.

[hilzoy]

G'Kar: "the average Congressman isn't willing to let the troops suffer without funding because the President has hung them out to dry."

This was actually the only thing that gave me pause during the debate over the supplemental. I thought: the President has said so often that cutting funding for the war means not something like: funding an orderly withdrawal, but rather: leaving the troops stranded in Iraq without bullets or food; and he's been (apparently) so convincing at it that I have to ask myself: would he be prepared to score political points by actually leaving the troops stranded in Iraq without bullets or food?

With any other President I can think of (in recent memory -- I'm not really up on the character of, say, Rutherford B. Hayes or W. H. Harrison), the answer would be: good God, of course not. With this President, I don't think its clear at all.

That I'm not sure of the answer is, I think, about the most damning thing I could possibly say about any President.

[G'Kar]

Well, Roosevelt may not be a recent memory, but he did, in fact, do something quite similar, if not quite so damning, as the Great White Fleet would not have been in combat if he had stranded it on the far side of the world.

[hilzoy]

G'Kar: That's one of the things I love about this blog: learning stuff I didn't know. (For instance, when I read your comment I thought, for no reason at all, that you were referring to FDR.)

Still, the "in combat" part does make a teensy difference, no? ;) It situates this differently on the spectrum that goes from dubious assertions of prerogative to sociopathy.

[Jesurgislac]

Hilzoy: That's one of the things I love about this blog: learning stuff I didn't know.

Seconded. I'd never heard of the Great White Fleet.

Well, Roosevelt may not be a recent memory, but he did, in fact, do something quite similar, if not quite so damning, as the Great White Fleet would not have been in combat if he had stranded it on the far side of the world.

Well, not really similiar. The crew of the Great White Fleet would not have been at risk of dying if stranded, nor would the people of the country where they were stranded. Whereas if the US military are left without resources in the middle of Iraq, they're going to die: or if, without orders, some American Xenophon decides to take command and get them out, this will be at a far greater cost of lives - both US and Iraqi - than would be if Bush had agreed to fund a planned and organised withdrawal.

[G'Kar]

hilzoy,

I didn't know about it either. I read about it in this month's Military History magazine. Great stuff; I need to put up a post at it back at All Alone in the Night, if I can find the time and the bandwidth, both of which are in limited supply at the moment.

Jesurgislac,

I disagree. The two instances differ greatly in degree, but not in kind. In both cases Congress says to the President not to perform a certain military action, in both cases the President places the military in a position where they will fail if the Congress sticks to its guns, and in the historical example, Congress folded, just as I suspect Congress would fold should the hypothetical scenario unfold.

[hilzoy]

G'Kar: you still have privileges here ...

[sglover]

If you ask me, Meirs' refusal to honor a Congressional summons -- at the behest of The Decider -- ought to sufficient grounds to crank up impeachment proceedings right there. Since when does the executive branch get to shirk lawful requirements to provide testimony?!?! If the Dems can't muster some serious responses to this Constitutional crisis, we simply aren't a republic any more.

[G'Kar]

hilzoy,

I thought posting by fictional characters was strictly forbidden.

[Bruce Baugh]

G'kar, a writing tip from someone who's had to deal with the same thing himself: whenever you're presenting an analysis of a situation or logic you find undesirable, just make sure to mention that. In saner times you could leave the conclusion implicit and trust to the decency of your readership to grant you a presumption of innocence back. But the crazies have used it up, for the time being. Your analyses are good, just remember to throw in the emotion flag, too.

[G'Kar]

Bruce,

Thank you. I will try to remember that. Emotion is not my strongest suit.

[Dantheman]

G'Kar,

"hilzoy,

I thought posting by fictional characters was strictly forbidden."

Clearly not, as the former front-pager who also appeared in the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy can attest.

[hilzoy]

G'Kar: rules were made to be broken. And if not for the Narn Ambassador, then for whom?

[Bruce Baugh]

G'kar: Glad to help. And I do think it's unfortunate that sane and decent people have to go through any extra steps because of the crazies. It's just that, well, the crazies are there and doing their thing, so we have to take them into account.

[G'Kar]

Dantheman,

Good point.

hilzoy,

Touche. However, I'm reasonable certain there's no G'Kar account active. ;)

Bruce,

Sad, but true.

[J Thomas]

....whenever you're presenting an analysis of a situation or logic you find undesirable, just make sure to mention that. In saner times you could leave the conclusion implicit and trust to the decency of your readership to grant you a presumption of innocence back. But the crazies have used it up, for the time being.

Thank you, I'll try to remember that too.

[G'Kar]

For those who are interested, I've posted additional thoughs on the topic of the war powers of the U.S. government here.