The House yeterday voted in favor of taking down the terrorist-funding butcher in Bagdad. A brave and principled Dick Gephardt led the coalition of Democrats in support. Meanwhile, Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader of the Senate, finally came out with a position, and it's the same as Gephardt's, virtually guaranteeing passage in the Senate.
Both men showed uncommon courage in doing so. Gephardt in particular, as this sort of thing could threaten his post as Democratic leader. But Daschle showed some spine, too. I wish he'd shown sooner, but the chips are down and he's making the right call now, when it counts the most. Both men have set aside partisanship and made the right choice, and I applaud them.
I also applaud some who voted against the resolution--those who did so from a position of thoughtful dissent, that is. To those who used it as an opportunity to smear and slander, talking about evil warmongers, "blood for oil," "chickenhawks," and so on, I say you are (yes) unpatriotic, blind partisans who are hurting both your party and your country. But to those who voted against from a stance of principle and reason, and not from a stance of rabid partisanship, I say thank you for your honesty. I believe your fears are ungrounded, and that the people of Iraq, the people of Israel, and the people of the Middle East as a whole won as much as the American people did.
Let's all hope I'm right, eh?
I am confused slightly about this vote, and maybe someone with more political science background can clear this up. Does this bill provide authorization or approval? It was my understanding that the President already has the power to activate the military. I know this bill shows wide support for his plan, and I believe it is a positive step, but was it a necessary step to send troops to Iraq?
Brian,
Your question is a good one; but it's answer is rather complex. The President's authority to use troops overseas is more vague in practice than is stated in the Constitution. Congress alone has the power to declare war. No President since FDR has done so. Every overseas use of our troops since Pearl Harbor has been without a formal declaration of war.
Of course, every President wants the authority to use our troops as he sees fit. Congress wants to protect its power to declare war and constitutinally regulate their use. As far back as 1803 Thomas Jefferson deployed the United States navy to dispatch with the Barbary Coast pirates without a formal declaration of war. The Barbary Coast pirates were the terrorists of their day.
Executive branch authority was so abused from FDR through Watergate that congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1974 to exert its authority. This gives the Senate the power to demand the recall of our troops within 60 days of their overseas deployment if the President does not expressly ask for congressional approval within that 60 days.
The U.S. House of Representatives just gave its imprimatur to the President's use of American troops. The Senate will give its approval in the next few days. Please note this is not a formal declaration of war; however, it does guarantee that congress will not invoke the War Powers Act. This further gurantees that Bush will be able to do as he wishes with Iraq and will receive the requisite funding for this operation.
Democrats are the only ones who have threatened to invoke the War Powers Act. Republicans defer to the executive branch almost every time. This Iraq police action and war on terrorism is another example of this deference.
Granted, this war on terrorism is a very strange exception to all past wars. For the first time we are not at war with a recognized government; but we are instead at war with an organization supported by at least one government waging an undeclared war against us. This government is Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The best argument I heard regarding the withholding of support for this Iraq operation is proferred by congress Paul from Texas. Congressman Paul wants us to formally declare war in Iraq; then wage a formal war then get the hell out. This is constitutionally the soundest argument against this resolution.
Without a formal declaration of war we run a greater risk of overstaying our welcome in Iraq. We also have a less clearly defined aim in this war. We also have a less clearly defined exit strategy.
Edgy Middle Eastern nations will also more clearly understand our intrusion in another Middle Eastern country with a formal declaration of war. Many of them already do not trust us. I personally believe they might be less distrustful if we formally declared war with another nation that never formally ceased hostilities against us. That is your casus belli. These are the only problems I see in this resolution passed by the House of Representatives.
Kevin Brehmer
Most Democrats voted "no" thereby defying their own leadership.
On the other hand, many Dem Presidential aspirants voted "yes."
Find out which ones.
Which House Republicans voted "no"? If I was a mutant, I could count 'em all on one hand. Click here to find out who we're talkin 'bout.
Which state has a House delegation with no Republicans? Can you guess? Click here to find out.
Did you know that USA Today thinks there are two Senators Kennedy? BTW, they both voted "no." Click here to find out where the "other" Senator Kennedy comes from.
For those of you who like to run the numbers (and connect them to real people) read this at E Pluribus Unum.
I think Brian was asking what exactly the specific item(s) passed do.
In the case of the House, they authorized the President to use whatever force he deems necessary to deal with the situation in Iraq. He's got to report back to them every 60 days or so, but he's got the green light from them to do as he sees fit. They have, essentially, declared war on the region.
Nothing counts unless the Senate agrees too of course. And while the Senate had a crucial vote, so far what they've voted for is significant but not yet binding.
The Senate approved the language of the bill that they will vote on later. In short: "We agree on what we will be arguing about later." %-)
As strange as it sounds, this is just how Congress does things. When a bill is to be debated, there is a long period where various members can add amendments, additions, rewordings, etc. All that goes through lengthy discussion and debate and voting until finally everybody agrees, "Yes! This is the final bill on which we will all vote either yes or no."
When a Senator or Congressman wants to mess with a bill, he'll try to insert language into the bill that will A) take the teeth out of it, or B) language that no one likes (i.e. "inserting a stink bomb"). In the former case, mischief-makers are trying to water down the bill so it lacks the power that those proposing it intended. In the latter, he's trying to put something in there no one wants to vote for, so as to increase its odds of being voted down on the final vote. (i.e. "this tax bill also formally declares war on the Girl Scouts of America.")
Once you get the hang of this, you start to understand what they're doing.
The Senate voted on the final language of a bill that looks almost identical to what the House passed. Efforts to water it down or insert stink-bombs failed.
So, when a resolution that strong sails through largely unaltered, then it either means that it can't pass as-is, or is expected to pass easily, with an overwhelming majority.
In this particular case, 77 out of 100 Senators voted in favor of language which gives the President virtually everything he asked for. In these circumstances, it is understood that this will probably match the number of Senators who will vote for final passage, most likely next week. This is filibuster-proof and, barring something overwhelmingly unlikely (I dunno, a nuclear attack on Washington by Chad or something), it means the final resolution will pass.
It all still isn't a given that we're going to war in Iraq. The President has made it clear that Saddam Hussein can still avert this--but he'd pretty much have to leave the country and go into exhile to make it happen. Don't hold your breath. The guy gives every indication of wanting to go out in a blaze of glory.
As for much of what Mr. Brehmer says: I think those are good points. But I begin to think of late that when Congress authorizes use of force, that should be thought of as a declaration of war. Just because they don't use that language, it's really what they're doing, isn't it?
Dean:
"The Senate approved the language of the bill that they will vote on later. In short: "We agree on what we will be arguing about later."
They voted last night or early this morning. It's done. It passed the Senate. It's on the way to Bush for his signature. The Senate passed the House's bill straight on - it's over. Did you miss it?
Welp, I see that once again my lovely wife is correct. At the time that I wrote that, I was unaware that the Senate had voted on the bill this morning. That's surprisingly quick, quicker than most thought would happen. As of last night they'd only voted on the language of the resolution.
What's most interesting is that they voted on the exact language that the House used. This means there'll be no conference committee to hammer out differences before a final vote. It's officially done and on its way for the President's signature.
I will repeat something I've said before: I believe that this sort of declaration should be considered the modern version of a declaration of war. Those who are saying we should hava formal declaration of war are missing the point: we just got one.
Just because you've declared war doesn't mean you have to start shooting today, and doesn't even necessarily mean you can't negotiate before shooting begins. But we're at war as of now, ladies and gentlemen!
Small detail:
Does the President actually have to sign this?
I thought it was just a resolution.
I don't recall Bush 41 signing anything in 1990.
I believe it has to be signed for it to have the force of law. Can't say for sure, but Fox News sez: "Because the Democratic-led Senate approved the House version of the measure without changing a word, it now goes directly to Bush for his signature."
Unless they're mistaken, it's something he has to sign. Or he's going to sign it, anyway.
Well, there you are then. A signature is in order.
(But wait, Fox still calls it a "resolution" not "legislation.")
I support President Bush on his aggressive stance vis-ŕ-vis Iraq, although I vastly prefer a formal declaration of war instead. Doing so reaffirms the Constitution, congressional authority, and requires a solid reason for committing our troops to danger. This is necessarily more difficult to do; but it does assure a strong, formal debate before dedicating our troops to battle.
You simply have look at the two great quagmires of the last century, The Korean and Vietnam Wars, to see the complex problems caused by not doing so. I do not doubt we will prevail. However, I believe going the formal route gives us greater moral authority when unburdening the world of this terrible, despotic, and quite dangerous, Iraqi regime.
It also formally sets the parameters for our present and future aggressive war on terrorism making it easier for chary Middle Eastern governments to understand our reasons for doing so. Going our chosen route is less clear and gives radical Arabs more cause to further radicalize other eastern Arabs against us.
How do we justify actions against other sponsors of terrorism? How do we deal with terrorists existing inside “friendly” nations such as Saudi Arabia who are not part of any government? How do we deal with Pakistan, who most surely has Al Qaeda members, including bin Laden, inside its borders that is helping us on this war against terrorism? This authority granted by congress does not address these difficult questions. Instead, congressional oversight will be nil, and not easily retrieved.
Seeing congress give up its carefully constructed power scares me. Our founding fathers never intended The Constitution to create imperial powers. Those checks and balances are there for a reason. Our nation was founded on vigorous debate. Such deployment of U.S. troops requires one.
Giving the President fast track authority to negotiate trade treaties also gives our increasingly cowardly congressmen an automatic out. Senators will simply blame the President for negotiating poor treaties. They will be the first ones to forget they are responsible for abdicating their power to approve treaties and future modifications to them.
This resolution instead gives the President carte blanche to do as he sees fit while congress abdicates any future congressional oversight. I sometimes wonder whether the legislative branch of our national government is over consumed doing things not required, or allowed, by our constitution that it has little time left over of the things it actually should.