Democrats Should Move to the Center

While Steny Hoyer is preparing for pre-emptive surrender on the Iraq timeline issue, Chris Cilizza who has no real ideological stake in the matter has some polling numbers:

Roughly six-in-ten people in the Pew sample (59 percent) said they want their member of Congress to back an Iraq funding bill that includes a timeline for American troops to begin withdrawing. Of that 59 percent, more than half (54 percent) said Democrats should "insist" on a timeline's inclusion in the legislation while 42 percent backed the party working with Republicans and the Bush Administration on a solution.

By contrast, only 33 percent of the overall sample said they preferred that their lawmaker oppose a timeline as part of the Iraq funding bill.

There's no real tactical justification for indicating that Democrats are ready, willing, and eager to back down. The public's on their side. Maybe Hoyer wants to capitulate because he opposes the timeline on the merits (he's one of the few "Hard Power Democrats" Michael O'Hanlon praises by name, after all) but if that's the case he shouldn't have backed the bill Bush just vetoed.

Comments

Glad to see you're finally coming around to the Edwards bandwagon on this topic, Matt.

And by the way, I don't agree with you that Obama is a "Hard Power Democrat". I just think he's weak on this issue because he has to run very close to the center to maintain his viability for the general election.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 12:34 PM

If it was up to me, I would agree with Edwards' proposed course of action 100%, but I'm of the school of thought that says it's real easy for him to say when he's no longer in the Senate.

If you're actually in the Senate, even if your personal views align with Edwards' recommendation 100%, you have to deal with the reality of how many votes you have. And if the votes aren't there to send the same bill back to the President, then you're not helping stop the war by stubbornly clinging to that position.

From a standpoint of legislative strategy, the only sensible next step is to start trying to pick off a non-trivial number of Republicans to try and ratchet up the pressure. If you lose a few more liberal votes along the way, that's normal and expected; a handful of staunch liberals voted against the last bill and the world didn't end. But unless you're an outsider like Edwards with no skin in the game, making sure you retain a legislative majority is the paramount consideration.

Posted by Steve | May 2, 2007 12:49 PM

It's more than a little odd to me that the use of "timeline" is bandied about in these discussions with little or no definition of what that might imply. For example, President Bush might well agree to a timeline that required troop withdrawal to begin no sooner than January 1, 2525. And any timeline agreed on would necessarily have to be a flexible one--there's just too much unpredictability in the situation to make forcing adherence to a set of rigid deadlines at all meaningful.

The "timeline" polling question, then, is really juts a euphemistic way of asking "should Congress have *any power at all* to direct the course of the war in Iraq?" I don't know if phrasing it that way, though, would produce the same poll results.

Posted by James Gary | May 2, 2007 12:50 PM

"I'm of the school of thought that says it's real easy for him to say when he's no longer in the Senate."

Is it easy to spend campaign funds on his first ad demanding that Congress send the bill back?

"If you're actually in the Senate, even if your personal views align with Edwards' recommendation 100%, you have to deal with the reality of how many votes you have."

Is that why one month ago, way before any vote counting could be done, Obama said he would give away the store to the Republicans:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

Don't get me wrong. I actually like both Steny Hoyer and Barack Obama. I don't think they're militarists, just centrists. But as Matthew notes above:

There's no real tactical justification for indicating that Democrats are ready, willing, and eager to back down.

I think it's hard to argue with that.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 1:03 PM

Really, now. This funding bill gambit has been in the works for months, and so has Bush's veto. Yet here we are the day /after/ the veto, and key democrats are wandering around (publicly!) muddling on their "response" like it's the first time they bothered to think about it? Naturally the press will report it as a weak response, and they're right to--- the public muddling makes us look like a bunch of weaklings (just what the democrats need right now) while giving Bush a much-needed political victory.

I'm struggling to see the devious logic in this whole mess... Maybe the whole thing was a ruse designed to placate the left fringe in the party, but still ensure that the war is still going strong during the 2008 elections?

Posted by MattNotYglesias | May 2, 2007 1:04 PM

Doesn't everybody just love how Petey makes so many threads a "yay for Edwards!" discussion? Does anyone know the bill number for the vetoed legislation? I've been trying to look it up, but news sources I've looked all have all skipped over saying the number. I highly doubt Clinton and Obama, for instance, voted against this legislation.

Posted by Reality Man | May 2, 2007 1:04 PM

Matt,

Not to be the spoil sport, but Hoyer wants to capitulate because he favors the war. His sister is on the Board of Directors for AIPAC. He has an incredible conflict of interest here.

Posted by patience | May 2, 2007 1:06 PM

"I'm of the school of thought that says it's real easy for him to say when he's no longer in the Senate."

Here's the TV ad that Edwards is putting his money on. If the ad is any measure, it's real easy for lots of folks not in the Senate to say that Hoyer and Obama are on the wrong side of this issue.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 1:19 PM

Is it easy to spend campaign funds on his first ad demanding that Congress send the bill back?

Yes, I think it's super-duper easy. Let's not mistake spending money on an ad for cleaning the Augean stables.

The point is that it's simple to urge Congress to do something that the votes aren't there for, when you're not a member of Congress yourself. If you're actually in Congress, you have to deal with the reality of not having enough votes, and figure out the second-best course of action. Edwards, not being in the Senate any longer, doesn't have to come up with a Plan B.

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

I agree that this kind of statement makes no sense in the context of a negotiation. You could send the message that the troops will not be left unfunded while taking a much, much tougher tone.

Posted by Steve | May 2, 2007 1:24 PM

"I agree that this kind of statement makes no sense in the context of a negotiation."

"Makes no sense" seems like a massive understatement to me. Obama's statement not only gives away the store, but it also places blame for "playing chicken with our troops" on the Democratic Congress, rather than on the Bush WH where it belongs.

"Let's not mistake spending money on an ad for cleaning the Augean stables."

No doubt. But what you say, the positions you take, and where you spend money during a Presidential campaign all show who you've decided to stand with in the fight.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 1:39 PM

There doesn't need to be a "tactical justification" for cutting a deal to provide funding, because it's the right thing to do.

The President is the C-I-C of the armed forces and Congress absolutely may not force him to order the troops home from Iraq. If Congress cuts off funding, Bush will leave the troops there anyway. Don't you all see that? That would be a huge disaster, and no involved party would come off looking well (so there's your tactical justification, Martha).

Governing is not always about going with the poll numbers. (Besides, maybe things have changed but 54% of 59% wasn't what you would call a majority back when I took the mathematics.)

It's great that the Democrats got it together to send a timeline bill to Bush--it sure wasn't easy and Pelosi and Reid deserve a lot of credit. But it was only a symbolic gesture, and that's all it ever can be. The next step is carved in stone: the troops will be funded. The only question is whether the Congress will be dragged their kicking and screaming or whether it can find a way to do what must be done while maintaining the political momentum.

Posted by Trickster | May 2, 2007 1:44 PM

God Damnit! This is the kind of shit that pisses me off to no end. This is a rare case in which the right decision on the merits is also the right decision politically- Stand your fucking ground! Congress passed a bill that provides funding for the troops. It also included a wildly popular provision to set a timetable for withdrawal. It is the motherfucking president who has refused to fund the troops, who is playing politics with the funding, and who is committed to an open ended occupation. For fuck's sake the American people agree with the Democrats!! Why aren't we throttling the fuckers with this!!!!

Also, fuck the media for the predictable framing of "Democrats are up against the wall because if they don't compromise with the president, they aren't supporting the troops." Bullshit!!! Fuck you media, and fuck you spineless and politically tone deaf Democrats... (there... I feel better now)

Posted by drjimcooper | May 2, 2007 1:49 PM

Obama did not say that we should preemptively surrender on the legislation.

He said that if, because of Bush's pigheaded intransigence, it came to the point where troops were being put in danger due to a lack of funding, then Congress would be obligated to provide the funds. Seems correct to me, if a bit of poor framing (though it does set up Bush responsibility for continuing the war and frames the "doesn't support the troops" meme against Bush, so I don't know how bad it really was).

Since it is unlikely that Bush will cave and it is unlikely that we will be able to overturn the veto, setting up the post-funding spin in favor of the Democrats (Bush=pigheaded obstructionist who doesn't care about the troops), doesn't seem crazy to me.

In fact, if you frame the post-funding spin properly, that can serve as a strong motivation for Bush to sign a compromise measure that does include a timeline in some form.

And if Bush cared about what most people thought, we would have been withdrawing months ago.

Posted by Patrick | May 2, 2007 2:07 PM

"Seems correct to me, if a bit of poor framing"

Steny Hoyer agrees with you and Obama, Patrick. Most Democrats don't, however.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 2:13 PM

I would think that the Democrats' goal should be to prevent the Republicans from defecting from Bush. If there's a danger of defections, then the Democrats should keep moving their position to the left. Why let the Republicans off the hook? The closer the Republicans are tied to Bush, the worse they'll do next election.

Posted by Jim W | May 2, 2007 2:23 PM

Congress absolutely may not force him to order the troops home from Iraq.

This baffles me; Congress has the exclusive power to declare war, which implies that it has the power to end conflict as well.

The President is the Commander in Chief, but he answers to Congress.

Posted by Kimmitt | May 2, 2007 2:29 PM

Obama did not say that we should preemptively surrender on the legislation.

He said that if, because of Bush's pigheaded intransigence, it came to the point where troops were being put in danger due to a lack of funding, then Congress would be obligated to provide the funds.

If you have a more accurate quote than what Petey supplied, please let us know. Otherwise, I have to agree with Petey's take.

You can say that the troops won't be left unfunded without leaving the impression that all Bush has to do is veto and fine, we'll give him what he wants. The reporter's characterization was "If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline." I'd love to see some evidence that "quickly" was just unsupported gloss added by the reporter. Even Crazy Jim Moran got the spin better when he said "The problem is Bush is willing to play chicken with funding the troops and we aren’t."

From a standpoint of negotiating strategy, the most important thing is not to telegraph your next move, whatever it may be. That shouldn't have been super-hard in this case, since the Democrats hadn't even figured out their next move! But if you're going to presume to speak for the entire caucus, the least you can do is telegraph strength and not weakness.

Posted by Steve | May 2, 2007 2:38 PM

Let's hope the Democrats are more clever than we think, and they're trying to goad Bush into being intransigent, by hinting that they'll cave. If they don't cave, Bush and the Republicans will be stuck.

Posted by Jim W | May 2, 2007 2:47 PM

I wasn't talking about the spin, I was talking about the content. Obama said in a CNN interview explaining the comments(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/01/le.01.html):

"You know, the problem is, is that you have got an obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change in the face of circumstances on the ground"

"And, in that situation, what you don't want to do is to play chicken with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles."

"Obviously we're constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position."

He also said that he expected Senate to contine "increasing" the pressure to change course in Iraq and that we should use this as an opportunity to make gains and create a veto-proof coalition.

Neither of those last two comments indicate surrender.

As I said, this was unfortunately framed, but the underlying sentiment seems correct.

Look, imagine that this is the choice:

1) Democrats continue to send timelined budgets to Bush. Bush continues to veto. Eventually, the troops stop getting body armor, bullets, and food.

2) Democrats keep working towards a coalition for a timeline, making the case to the American people, pressuring Republicans to switch, and the like. But when push comes to shove, you provide funding for the troops so they don't you know get put in additional danger.

Seems to me that 2 is morally obligatory because the welfare of the troops in Iraq takes precedence over good politics. But we need to spin it so that we place the blame for the situation ON BUSH. And that is what Obama was trying to do.

Posted by Patrick | May 2, 2007 2:51 PM

Hey Drjimcooper-

Not to get OT, but I'm with you 100%. This endless Byzantine parsing of what-someone-said-or-implied-might-happen is just beyond spineless in its spinelessness.

Posted by James Gary | May 2, 2007 2:53 PM

"2.Democrats keep working towards a coalition for a timeline, making the case to the American people, pressuring Republicans to switch, and the like. But when push comes to shove, you provide funding for the troops so they don't you know get put in additional danger."

The only way to get a withdrawal bill passed is if actually cutting off funding the war is a real possibility. Otherwise Bush will simply wait the Dems out, knowing that sooner or later they'll be forced to give him what he wants.

Posted by James Gary | May 2, 2007 2:57 PM

Obama also said this later in the interview:

"OBAMA: Right. I think that we continue to put a series of votes up and try to convince our colleagues on the Republican side that the only way that we are going to change circumstances in Iraq is if you see a different political dynamic; that there are, at this point, no military solutions to the problems in Iraq; that what we have to do is get the Shia, the Sunni, the Kurd to come together and say to themselves "We, in fact, are willing to start making some compromises around oil revenues, around the arming of militias and so on.""

This does not sound like a person who wants to immediately pass Bush's revenue bill, but rather like someone who believes it may eventually be necessary and we should be preparing for that battle as well.

Posted by Patrick | May 2, 2007 2:57 PM

Kimmitt, I think the Founding Fathers probably intended that Congress would be able to "veto" a foreign military expedition by cutting off the funds, and probably that they could prevent it from ever happening by not declaring war.

In practice, however, the President has repeatedly exercised his C-I-C powers quite independently of Congressional use of war powers/funding powers. It has happened scores if not hundreds of times, from Jefferson on forward.

Posted by Trickster | May 2, 2007 3:01 PM

Of that 59 percent, more than half (54 percent) said Democrats should "insist" on a timeline's inclusion in the legislation while 42 percent backed the party working with Republicans and the Bush Administration on a solution.

Someone's not following up with the math. That's 54 percent of that 59 percent. Thus, only about 32 percent (0.59*0.54 = 0.318) insist on a timeline. On the other hand, 42 percent of that 59 percent, or about 25 percent (0.42*0.59) of the total, want negotiations with the President. That looks like 25+33 = 57 percent opposed to a strict timeline (recalling that 33 percent were never in favor of any sort of timeline).

Don't get me wrong. I am very much in favor of a timeline. I do however oppose misreading and/or misusing basic probabilities.

Posted by Il Dude | May 2, 2007 3:02 PM

"In practice", Trickster? That unconstitutional practice is exactly what needs to be reversed before even more ill-considered adventures are undertaken by future Preznits, and there's no time like the present. We're where we are because of the gutlessness of past Congresses. Enough is goddamn well enough.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | May 2, 2007 3:07 PM

Dude, while your arithmetic is correct, that's a tendentious interpretation, arrived at via a curious way of aggregating different responses. It is equally true and more germane to say that only 33% of respondents favor giving Bush a blank check. Those in the wishy-washy middle on this could readily be brought to see- by, you know, real Democratic LEADERS, if we had any- that anything but a cutoff in fact amounts to giving Bush a blank check. Leaders are supposed to be a little ahead of public opinion, not lagging a step behind.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | May 2, 2007 3:12 PM

Steve, what you're proposing is impossible. The Supreme Court has certified the President's power to, not just command the troops, but exercise extraordinary war powers in the absence of a declaration of war on numerous occasions. And if you'll read the cases, you'll see that their reasoning is not really that far off. The Constitution does give him command of the military, and command is one of those absolute words. He's at the very top of the chain of command, and no one can give him orders that are transmissable to the military. Add practical reasons, reasons related to the structure of the government, reasons related to the structure of English and Europeans armies that were the model for our military, and those cases really haven't been very controversial and they are long-established. It would take a Constitutional amendment to override them.

Regardless of whether that interpretation is right or wrong, it is the law, it is the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and the Constitution by its own terms means what the Supreme Court says it means.

Congress is like a hog-nosed snake here: it can hiss, rattle its tail in the dry leaves, blow its upper body out into a hood, feign striking, and so forth and so on, but unless the bluff is taken Congress has no power whatsoever. Please, read that, because it is undeniably the legal and Constitutional truth: Congress has no power whatsoever to order that troops be moved to or withdrawn from any particular spot.

Now, an ordinary President would most assuredly withdraw troops from an overseas posting if Congress cut off funds for that posting. I just don't see that happening with this guy. It would be backing down to a Democratic Congress, and he won't do that.

Posted by Trickster | May 2, 2007 3:17 PM

Patrick says above:

"But when push comes to shove, you provide funding for the troops so they don't you know get put in additional danger.

Seems to me that 2 is morally obligatory because the welfare of the troops in Iraq takes precedence over good politics. But we need to spin it so that we place the blame for the situation ON BUSH. And that is what Obama was trying to do."

I have to disagree. It is morally obligatory at this point to bring the troops home. This is the only way to prevent putting them in "additional danger." By caving to Bush, we give him cover to keep our men and women on the ground indefinitely. The only way we can possibly get Bush to change course is to remove Bush from office. The only way to accomplish this goal is to make more Americans (Republicans and Democrats)wake up to his mendacity, and demand their Congress-persons and Senators to ITMFA.

In my view, the best way to achieve the goal of IingTMFA is to send him the same bill with the same unified message: "Democrats and Republicans in Congress have passed a bill which not only funds our troops but sets the stage for their safe return home. President Bush refuses to support a bill that would give our troops the money they need to end their mission and bring them home safely. Democrats stand united in our efforts to bring our men and women home as quickly and safely as possible." 59% of Americans support a funding bill with provisions for a withdrawal timeline. Hammering home this message over and over should help us reach a good portion of the rest.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 2, 2007 3:19 PM

"As I said, this was unfortunately framed, but the underlying sentiment seems correct."

Well, Patrick...

You stand with Steny Hoyer and Obama.

I stand with John Edwards and Matthew.

It's just a difference of opinion.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 3:23 PM

Steve, what you're proposing is impossible.

It's so far from being impossible, that in fact defunding was essentially what forced an end to the Vietnam War. And Nixon was not a whole lot more rational than Bush. Your argument is baseless.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | May 2, 2007 3:27 PM

Well, that Pew poll still means that only 32% of the populace wants Democrats to "insist on a timeline", while 33% is totally opposed to any timeline and 25% wants the parties "working together on a solution". (Lotsa luck.) Give Tyrannosaurus Tex a few more months of refusing to discuss the subject at all, and that figure will no doubt shift still further in the Dems' direction; but for now the sensible strategy politically is to make some vague offers to negotiate (without any specific details), and let Bush's and Cheney's peculiar brand of breath-holding idiocy continue to work its magic on public opinion.

Oh, and then provide string-free funding for the continuation of the war -- for exactly 2 more months, that is, after which we can revisit the whole issue again and let B. and C. hang themselves and their party further.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | May 2, 2007 3:34 PM

Steve, that's just factually wrong. Defunding didn't end the Vietnam war. U.S. troops withdrew after Kissinger signed a peace treaty.

Nixon's irrationality was not wrapped inextricably around Vietnam as Bush's is around Iraq. Nixon's lode star was his own power. He didn't want to withdraw from Vietnam, but he was willing enough to accede to the political pressure and make it happen--eventually. The withdrawal was not a result of defunding.

I'm a lawyer, with some academic background in Presidential war powers, and I tell you that there's no question at all as to whether Congress can force the President to give any specific order to the armed forces. It cannot.

From Answer.com:

Article 2, Section 2, of the Constitution refers to the President as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.” This clause is the only mention the Constitution makes of Presidential war powers. By it the President becomes, in Alexander Hamilton's phrase, “first general and admiral,” and no one may be placed over him by Congress. Nor can he be outvoted by his cabinet, his senior military commanders, or the National Security Council. Final military decisions rest solely with the President, as with Harry Truman when he alone ordered atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.

The President issues orders through the chain of command that runs (by act of Congress) through the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the military theater (on-site, or field) commanders. The President's power to command troops, to assign them duties, and to move them anywhere he deems fit is generally not restricted by the courts.

Posted by Trickster | May 2, 2007 3:44 PM

I'm a lawyer, with some academic background in Presidential war powers, and I tell you that there's no question at all as to whether Congress can force the President to give any specific order to the armed forces. It cannot.

I don't believe there's any Constitutional authority that says the President can carry out a war in a foreign theater over the express objections of Congress. You can make a case for all kinds of things, but I think you're being disingenuous to assert that this is 100% settled.

What happens if Congress revokes the AUMF, but Bush refuses to withdraw the troops from Iraq? You don't know. It's never happened. The truth is, we're talking about an area of raw power that pretty much transcends lawyerly interpretations. After all, even if the courts were willing to step in, and even if they ruled in favor of Congress, what if the President still ignores them? Are they going to send Rusty the bailiff to enforce the order?

Posted by Steve | May 2, 2007 3:50 PM

What is missing from this discussion is an element that many major Democrats (pretty much everyone except Richardson) have come out in favor of: the over-the-horizon forces of Murtha-style redeployment plans. If funding gets cut off right away, you don't really have a chance of an over-the-horizon force, as I understand it, because the troops are pulled out. In addition, defunding wouldn't really bring home all forces involved in part because of the way the Deparment of Defense's budget is created over many years, especially how this relates to mercenaries (Blackwater, some of the Chilean former Pinochet supporters we have over there, etc.) who would probably still be operating over there. That would still be a few thousand people fighting this war for Bush via proxy without a plan, with less direct connection to governmental oversight and control over them all the while operating in our name. We also know that if there is a defunding, Bush probably wouldn't pull the troops out. Nixon, Ford and Kissinger at least privately understood that Vietnam was lost, so when there was finally a de-funding, they complied. However, Bush is off in lalaland and would probably make them stay and operate with even less equipment and food. While politically this would be bad for the Republicans, it wouldn't actually bring the troops home. For this to work, we would need someone more competent in the White House. His signing statements have shown he is willing not to listen to Congress when it suits him. Why would he do this differently? He has based his legacy and his ego on this war and won't let a silly thing like funding get in the way. Unless we truly come to grips with how nuts Bush is, de-funding talk and action will likely not lead to a troop pullout. We can play politics, but doubtfully can actually accomplish much.

Posted by Reality Man | May 2, 2007 3:55 PM

You need to dig a little deeper to find out WHY Nixon was motivated to negotiate peace. Go do some historical research.

You are wrong on the law as well, lawyer or not. Congress has allowed its very real authority to be undermined by handing a succession of presidents blank checks for undeclared wars. Those blank checks are not Constitutional precedents, by any means. While as you correctly but irrelevantly point out that it cannot issue specific orders on troop movements to the president, Congress most certainly can decline to provide funds for military operations of which it does not approve. And it should do so, right now, in this case.

You're either for ending the war or you're not. If you want to continue fighting an disastrous unwinnable, unpopular war, stand up and say so instead of hiding behind bogus rationales.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | May 2, 2007 3:56 PM

"If funding gets cut off right away, you don't really have a chance of an over-the-horizon force, as I understand it, because the troops are pulled out. In addition...."

Everything is negotiable in this world. Contending that there are logistical and bureaucratic reasons why the war "must" continue is ridiculous.

Posted by James Gary | May 2, 2007 5:22 PM

I don't believe there's any Constitutional authority that says the President can carry out a war in a foreign theater over the express objections of Congress. You can make a case for all kinds of things, but I think you're being disingenuous to assert that this is 100% settled.

I agree that fact pattern isn't 100% settled, but I think there is no chance at all that the current Supreme Court would interfere in that political question to order the President to obey Congress, and in fact I pretty much don't think that a good Supreme Court would, either.

I don't know of any authority, anywhere, for the proposition that there are limits on the President's command powers or that any other body can interpose between the President and the troops. So to get a court to both (1) interfere in the political question, and (2) issue an order to the President respecting his disposition of the armed forces seems to me to be an extremely tendentious proposition under any Supreme Court and, again, an absolute non-starter under the current Court.

I tend to speak cautiously about legal stuff, but I'm very confident that there is no real-world possibility that Bush can be forced by Congress to pull the troops out of Iraq. The only way to get the troops out of Iraq before 1/20/09 is to impeach both Bush and Cheney.

Posted by Trickster | May 2, 2007 5:30 PM

I don't know of any authority, anywhere, for the proposition that there are limits on the President's command powers or that any other body can interpose between the President and the troops.

Let's ignore the strawman question of whether Congress can tell a specific soldier when to shoot his gun, and focus on the real question: Does Congress have the power to tell the President whether or not he can conduct military operations in a specific foreign theater, period?

Do you believe Bush could have legally ordered an invasion of Iraq if Congress had refused to pass the IWR? And, if your answer is no, on what basis do you conclude that Congress has no power to get the troops out of Iraq by revoking the IWR?

And when it comes to the power of the purse, the answer is even easier. To me, it seems clear as day that if Congress passes a budget which says "no funds may be expended after January 1, 2008, for the maintenance of a military presence in Germany," then we'd have no choice but to close our bases in Germany.

I do not believe our constitutional order makes the United States military into the President's personal Praetorian Guard.

Posted by Steve | May 2, 2007 5:37 PM

I do not believe our constitutional order makes the United States military into the President's personal Praetorian Guard.

Between you and Bush, that makes one of you. ;)

Posted by Steve LaBonne | May 2, 2007 8:37 PM

Quite frankly Petey, you are just so full of shit.

And I would notice that you didn't ask my question.

If the Bush is indeed obstinate and decides that he would rather see troop protection and equipment downgrade rather than agree to a timetable (probably thinking that Congress, like when Gingrich shut down the government, will be blamed and not him), then what do you propose?

Let the troops die? Let them go without basic equipment? Without armor or bullets or medical supplies? Is that what you are proposing?

This isn't about who would be to blame for the situation. This isn't a political question. The question is what is Congress morally obligated to do in that situation?

Seems to me that the best option is to then, reluctantly, fund the Iraq War and use it is an opportunity to paint the President.

I have shown that Obama did not mean immediate surrender or that he meant we should give up on timetables right away.

But you are doing what you always do. Turning the other side into a strawman while providing no actual positive view of your own.

As I said, it is just bullshit.

Posted by Patrick | May 2, 2007 10:24 PM

Let's ignore the strawman question of whether Congress can tell a specific soldier when to shoot his gun,

Fine. That's silly. Why did you bring it up?

and focus on the real question: Does Congress have the power to tell the President whether or not he can conduct military operations in a specific foreign theater, period?

I don't think that Congress has that power, and most constitutional experts that I'm aware of agree with me. Our military is built around the idea of the chain of command, as Western militaries have always been built. The President is at the top. The Congress is not part of the chain of command and cannot pass a law to make itself a part of the chain. The Supreme Court has ratified this concept on several occasions.

In 1973 the Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, enshrining in statute the idea that Congress could legislate limits to the President's war powers. No President has ever accepted these limits and at times both Congress and the President have ignored its dictates. At other times, Presidents have acted in compliance with the WPR, as when Bush sought authorization for the Iraq War.

Most scholars doubt that the WPR is constitutional, but it has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Standing as it does at the exact tension point of the political power balance between President and Congress, no court will touch this issue if it can help it.

Every President since Nixon, under whom the WPR was passed--Presidents Ford (Mayaguez incident), Carter (hostages rescue attempt), Reagan (Libyan bombings, Grenada), GHW Bush (Panama, Iraq), Clinton (Haiti, Bosnia), and GW Bush (Afghanistan, Iraq)--has ordered one or more foreign military incursions without the benefit of a Congressional declaration of war. Many Presidents ordered such incursions without a declaration of war before the WPR was passed as well.

Do you believe Bush could have legally ordered an invasion of Iraq if Congress had refused to pass the IWR? And, if your answer is no, on what basis do you conclude that Congress has no power to get the troops out of Iraq by revoking the IWR?

I think it's doubtful that Congress has that power, and I think there's practically no chance that the current Supreme Court would both agree to hear the case and rule in favor of Congressional power. Such a ruling would seem to go against the language of the Constitution in regard to command of the armed forces. The language is pretty much self-defining: command isn't really command unless it's absolute.

And when it comes to the power of the purse, the answer is even easier. To me, it seems clear as day that if Congress passes a budget which says "no funds may be expended after January 1, 2008, for the maintenance of a military presence in Germany," then we'd have no choice but to close our bases in Germany.

Congress clearly has powers to affect troop disposition here, but the powers don't extend to actually ordering the troops to redeploy. I have little doubt that the weasely, secretive, buddy-buddy Bush Administration would find ways to run the clock for quite some time while declaring that the troops were being supported by expenditures from previous authorizations, etc., or by use of some other legal fiction that they will dream up. I don't think they could do this forever, but I'm pretty certain they could do it long enough to create a disaster. Again, courts would be extremely reluctant to step in, so half-assed legal fictions would likely have more currency than they should.

Really, this doesn't seem to me to be something that's a faint possibility. Unless I misread George Bush badly, he would absolutely bring the matter to a Constitutional confrontation if pushed to the wall. He will keep the troops there without funding, or without legal funding, and just make it into one more political issue to play hardball on, and it would take way too long for Congress and the courts to bring him to bay. I see little possibility that it would go any other way.

Posted by Trickster | May 3, 2007 12:07 AM

Every President since Nixon, under whom the WPR was passed has ordered one or more foreign military incursions without the benefit of a Congressional declaration of war.

But did a single one of those examples happen over the express disapproval of Congress? Under the Youngstown framework, as you know, it matters.

Not to mention, many of your examples rest upon the distinction between a formal declaration of war and an authorizing resolution, an issue which is simply not in play here.

Again, you're taking a scenario for which there is no historical precedent whatsoever - one side or the other has always backed down - and saying you know with certainty how the Constitution resolves the issue. It's one thing to predict what the current Supreme Court would do; it's another thing to insist that they'd be clearly right.

As for the notion that the only possible interpretation of the commander-in-chief power is that it's absolute and includes the authority to decide when and where to deploy the military, I urge you to consult Federalist 69, which rebuts your claim in no uncertain terms.

Posted by Steve | May 3, 2007 9:45 AM