House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

yup just as classy as this administration

 

Why quibble, Sisihir? People are dying while this war goes on. I can't understand why an opponent of this war would be worried about the point you raise. Are you a law professor or possibly a first year law student?

BTW I went to a conference in Austin roughly a year ago, entitled more or less "Historians Against the War." The historians claimed that Nixon ended the war in Vietnam, in part, because the vote to defund the war was getting closer and closer to suceeding each time it arose as an actual bill.

 

And I disagree with those on the same principles either.

I'm neither but I believe the Constitution should be respected even when Constitutional principles would prevent or slow down something that I otherwise agree with. The Constitution, separation of powers, and Bill of Rights are more important than ending this war quickly and if it takes a Democratic Congress longer to end the war by respecting the separation of powers I would take that over them ending it quickly by overstepping their their enumerated powers.

I was too young to remember that debate but was the vote a vote to completely defund the war or was it a conditional vote that the war would be defunded if certain benchmarks weren't met? This is a crucial distinction because Congress has the Constitutional power to cut off funding but where it gets problematic is where they are setting benchmarks based upon specific results on the battlefield. To me that is stepping into the role of Commander and Chief and determining strategy.

As I stated earlier I believe Congress has two constitutional options. Either completely defund the war without determining battlefield strategy or pass a non-binding resolution. The problem with the House bill isn't that it defunds the war but that it dictates specific strategy.

 

I understand why it is important to uphold our constitution. That is the reason that the President's numerous signing statements, Patriot Act, etc. are all so wrong. It goes against the document which sets the guidelines for our nation.

However defunding the war, seems constitutionally within Congress' constitutional power to me, though.

 

Can't disagree with this post.

 

Crikey!

Again...Its not just a matter of defunding the war its a matter of dictating battlefield strategy. Constitutionally Congress can defund but there is a reason why the Executive is the Commander and Chief and not Congress.

 

But can't congress have a rational set into the bill for why they are defunding it? I don't think the conditions they put in the bill are the same ones that Bush has been talking about for some time.

The only difference is that this puts actual teeth into it, while Bush's was just talk.

We also don't know what the final version of the bill will look like. Maybe it will be dictating strategy, but I don't think we can really say that at this point.

 

Ron Paul's take:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst032607.htm

More Funding for the War in Iraq​

March 26, 2007

Last week the House passed an emergency supplemental spending bill that was the worst of all worlds. The president’s request would have already set a spending record, but the Democratic leadership packed 21 billion additional dollars of mostly pork barrel spending in attempt to win Democrat votes. The total burden on the American taxpayer for this bill alone will be an astonishing 124 billion dollars. Democrats promised to oppose the war by adding more money to fight the war than even the president requested.

I am pleased to have joined with the majority of my Republican colleagues to oppose this bill.

Among the pork added to attract votes was more than 200 million dollars to the dairy industry, 74 million for peanut farmers, and 25 million dollars for spinach farmers. Also, the bill included more than two billion dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid, including half a billion dollars for Lebanon and Eastern Europe.

What might be most disturbing, however, is the treatment of veterans in the bill. Playing politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance by adding it onto a controversial bill to attract votes strikes me as highly inappropriate. Veterans’ funding should be included in a properly structured, comprehensive appropriations bill. Better still, veterans spending should be automatically funded and not subject to yearly politicking and nit-picking.

While I have been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning and do believe that there is a strong constitutional role for Congress when it comes to war, I could not support what appeared to be micro-management of the war in this bill. There is a distinction between the legitimate oversight role of Congress and attempts to meddle in the details of how the war is to be fought. The withdrawal and readiness benchmarks in this bill are in my view inappropriate. That is why the president has threatened to veto this bill.

In the last Congress I co-sponsored legislation urging the president to come up with a plan to conclude our military activity in Iraq, but that legislation contained no date-specific deadlines to complete withdrawal.

Once again Congress wants to have it both ways. Back in 2002, Congress passed the authorization for the president to attack Iraq if and when he saw fit. By ignoring the Constitution, which clearly requires a declaration of war, Congress could wash its hands of responsibility after the war began going badly by citing the ambiguity of its authorization. This time, House leaders want to appear to be opposing the war by including problematic benchmarks, but they include language to allow the president to waive these if he sees fit.

To top it off, House leadership may have actually made war with Iran more likely. The bill originally contained language making it clear that the president would need congressional authorization before attacking Iran – as the Constitution requires. But this language was dropped after special interests demanded its removal. This move can reasonably be interpreted as de facto congressional authority for an attack on Iran. Let’s hope that does not happen.

 

The bill has zero chance of becoming law so we are just debating the bill itself and not the final shape since its DOA. That said I still think it is irresponsible of the House to take this measure. If all this is is protest pass a non-binding resolution like what the Senate is debating. A resolution like that likely could pass an even overcome a veto threat.

Congress certainly has a right to state why they want to defund it but the problem is when they write into it battlefield objectives that have to be met. Obviously Congress's objectives are different than GW Bush's but he is the Commander and Chief and they are not.

If they defund it Constitutionally they should go all the way to defund it and not try to dictate what objectives they want to see out of the battle.

 

My point exaclty.

 

Congress has the right to fund or defund a war for whatever reason they see fit. They don't have to give a blank check to fund the war indefinitely. They certainly have the right to say that they will fund the war but if Congress doesn't like the direction of the war, to defund the war in the future. That's really all the bill says.

It's not an either/or situation regarding funding. It's not simply a choise of "They could fund the war indefinitely OR they could defund the war immediately." Congress can say that they will fund the war for now but only for a definite period of time subject to how the war is going.

 

I agree in principle with what you are saying.

The only thing to me is that it seems like they aren't changing his stragtey. The benchmarks they put into the bill, or nearly identical to the ones GW Bush talks about.

They seem the same. The only difference is that they mandate them, rather just toss them out into the cosmos, and hope they are fulfilled.

 

Yes, that's why they rushed Cheney to the Senate thinking that if it were a tie that he would vote FOR timetables. That's why they allowed their go-to water carrier, Chuck Hagel, to vote with the Dems on the issue.

It's bad news for the WH. The theory that it will costs Dems completely glosses over the fact that Bush has to veto the bill first... veto a bill that funds the soldiers, adds money to Vet's health care, adds money for armor, etc. Even when the veto comes, Dems will try again and the closer we get to 2008 the more Repubs will start to peel off to save their own hides. It's just a matter of time to reach a veto-proof number. The blood that's shed in the meantime will be on the hands of those who could have switched earlier but didn't for political reasons.

 

the bill is really, really bad.

Even if you are against the war and all, from a strategic standpoint i dont see how a reasonably intelligent person can think its a good idea.

this is a political move to rally votes for the next election. Parties can say "look, we tried to bring out troops home. we had a plan. bush denied our troops, etc etc". Its really disgusting

 

Totally agree. Putting a deadline into writing is just not a functional idea. Especially when said deadline is late in 2008 - then Bush has no incentive not to leave a mess in Iraq since he won't deal with it. If you insist on a nonsense deadline, at least make it Jan 2008 so that the change in strategy has to account for how to stabilize the situation on the ground there.

All around stupid.

 

^ right on. Pelosi is just doing what she does best...make a lot of noise

but face facts. US and allies are in iraq. Success in iraq is crucial for any hope at a somewhat stable middle east. Leaving iraq unfinished would be a disaster. but people are so anti-bush they cant see the long term.

, im getting heated just thinking about this

 

Staying in Iraq also be a disaster. What have we to show for four years of occupation? A nearly stable democracy? or a nearly civil war?

The anti-long term people should be W's biggest supporters.