Posted on 04/27/2007 8:05:50 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
The House of Representatives as Commander-in-Chief? By Paul Weyrich Friday, April 27, 2007
For the first time in American history the House of Representatives has informed the military that it knows more than the Commander in Chief about conducting a war. In doing so this Congress also has notified the enemy in our ongoing war in Iraq when the enemy should expect us to begin pulling out troops and precisely how many months it will take for complete withdrawal.
If only the Congress had thought of this idea earlier - perhaps back in 1944 - we could have sent a telegram to the Germans that included the D-Day schedule. This certainly would have saved the United States Government a lot of money and saved the Nazis a lot of trouble!
The vote on the Conference Report for HR 1591, officially known as the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, was 218 -208 with only two Republicans voting with the Democratic Majority. The Report contained many non-military appropriations as well, but required all continued funding of the military be linked to specific dates for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. This is the "hammer" the legislation intended to use against the President because the Pentagon is literally out of money right now and already has used up one supplemental appropriation.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV) has changed his mind about this issue three times in the last six months. Campaigning last November, he swore not to allow cutting off funds for the military under any circumstance. Then he decided that it was okay under certain conditions. Now he is threatening to present brand new legislation which would completely end all funding for the War in Iraq.
Senator Reid also recently informed the American people (and our troops) that "Winning the war is no longer the job of the U.S. military." Under Reid's leadership, the Senate is expected to pass something similar to the Conference Report passed last night in the House, possibly as early as today, but both sides are aware that President George W. Bush has promised to veto any legislation that includes a timeline for the Iraq War as soon as the legislation gets to his desk.
General David Petraeus spent much of yesterday on Capitol Hill speaking in closed session and trying to convince Members not to vote for the bill. (Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] was unavailable to meet with the General but that should not come as a surprise.) Petraeus specifically asked that Congress wait until July to judge whether the so-called "Surge Strategy" in Iraq was working before rushing ahead with legislation that included "a date certain" for withdrawal.
Though it was only recently, in January of 2007, that Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate to command of U.S. troops in Iraq, few on the Hill seem to want to listen to his advice. Politics is more important.
An interesting feature of the Conference Report passed last evening is the items it did contain: no money for the troops without a pullout timetable but lots of earmarks. The House version of the Iraq funding bill still includes most of the "pork barrel" spending that was in place when it passed in the original form. (A conference report is the result of differences between House and Senate legislation worked out and brought back for a final vote.)
There remains $3.5 billion for agricultural disaster relief, money for the Senate gift shop, salaries for farm service workers and $650 million to bail out one State's poorly run health insurance program for children - none of which has anything to do with the military but much to do with the business of re-election.
An unfortunate precedent has been set for future administrations and future military appropriations. Unofficially, there are plans already underway for another appropriations bill in the House, where the process will have to start all over again fairly soon but it is a sad day when elected Representatives play political games with military funding and our troops must hear about it on the battlefield.
It never should have come to this point. Now that it has, let the vetoing begin.
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
::sigh:: Sadly, yes they are.
Thinking of General Waxman directing the WOT would give me insomia.
Please don’t take this as a defense of the Dems, but, I disagree with the premise that once a war is started Congress has no say.
Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief, but this is still a democracy, and if the people want to end a war, they need to have the power to do so.
I don’t think that we should end this war, but I also don’t think that once war is declared we have a dictator who is the only one who can decide if a war is worth continuing to fight.
The democrat traitors in Congress are attempting a coup d’etat to usurp the Constitutional Powers of the President. They are constitutionally allowed to either fund or non fund the war but not to put conditions on funds and micromanage the war. Traitor Jack Murtha said few days ago that “The JOB of Congress is to MICROMANAGE the WAR”. That is TREASON and the traitors must be stopped.
In a Pigs eye, they know more. Sorry Nancy!
They do...congress can cut off all funds for the war.
I still believe the President’s best chance is to have a “fireside chat” with the Public on the TV and Cable News Prime Time. Lay out the facts, appealing to the citizens.
This is the time to go over the heads of the congresscritters and go to the public. The Networks should refuse the “Democratic Response” since they have already have announced their case in Congress.
The bucks stop here at the Citizens. We voted them in and the representatives no longer listen to us.
I thought we were a representative republic.
yeah, i know, but sometimes I dont even bother mentioning that because people get all confused.
Not sure if you heard the President last Saturday, but his speech was about the victims and families at V-Tech, the dims response a few words about V-Tech and then a rant about Iraq. I felt it was totally inappropriate
This is the real parallel between Iraq and Vietnam: a Congress doing everything in their power to destroy the authority of the President, take over control of a war, cripple our ability to fight effectively, and eventually force a humiliating pullout, then watching unfeelingly as brutal thugs fill the power vacuum we left behind and slaughter innocents.
Actually, the Constitution provides that the Congress can “stop” a “war”, such as our Iraq campaign, by not appropriating the funds needed to wage it.
The Democrats could legally do that, today.
But the Democrats want to avoid the BLAME that would necessarily have to be assigned:
(1) when an abandoned Iraq really DOES fall into a civil war
(2) when hundreds of thousands of liberal, moderate Iraqis are murdered by Jihadist thugs (beheadings, 24/7?)
(3) when refugees swarm into and topple the governments of Kuwait and Jordan
(4) when US gasoline prices exceed $10 per gallon and
(5) when suicide bombers start launching themselves at US cities from Al Qaeda training camps re-established in Iraq.
This explains why the Democrats do NOT want the Iraq campaign to “end” today. They understand they need to “delay” the horrific consequences listed above until AFTER the next election cycle where (it is believed) their “anti-war” credentials will have a “beneficial effect” on the Democrats’ election prospects.
This explains the Democrats’ infamous “slow bleed” strategy. They want America to lose the Iraq campaign — but in a way that will allow the Democrats to place the blame for that loss on Republican “incompetence”. Rather than on their craven, selfish, treasonous selves.
“Petraeus specifically asked that Congress wait until July to judge whether the so-called “Surge Strategy” in Iraq was working before rushing ahead with legislation that included “a date certain” for withdrawal.”
Even this “wait until July” quote should not have been made public. It just gives al-q more info.
“Petraeus specifically asked that Congress wait until July to judge whether the so-called “Surge Strategy” in Iraq was working before rushing ahead with legislation that included “a date certain” for withdrawal.”
Even this “wait until July” quote should not have been made public. It just gives al-q more info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.