Some have expressed doubt of the power or ability of Congress to rein in an Executive Branch that has exceeded or misused authority granted under an emergency Resolution. The issue is not one of legal authority, as the Constitution clearly allows Congress the power to declare war or refrain from doing so, to revoke or rescind authority granted by an act of Congress and to cut off funding of actions that it does not support or authorize. The problem currently faced is one of practicality and political willpower to exercise any of those powers.
President Bush requested authority to use military force in Iraq, based upon the premise that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons which he intended to use against the United States and its allies or interests. This grant of authority followed the failure of the United States to persuade the United Nations to pass a resolution indicating that international intervention was warranted. While some nations refused to align themselves with the US position regarding the invasion for political reasons, most rejected the proposal on grounds that military force was unwarranted and likely to be unproductive when diplomatic measures had not been exhausted. Others were skeptical of the alleged “proof” of weapons of mass destruction.
Subsequent events have shown us that President Bush planned to invade Iraq and put those plans into motion even without United Nations approval or support. The purported justification for the attack has been shown to be false, as it was based upon erroneous intelligence or deliberately “cooked” reports and analyses. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological weapons being developed or stockpiled and there was no actual threat of attack by Iraq or Saddam Hussein against the United States or any of its allies. The alleged link between Osama Bin laden and Saddam Hussein made by the Bush Administration has been thoroughly discredited. In consequence, the entire basis or justification for the Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq has been proven false and unsubstantiated.
The justification that Bush now advances for keeping troops in Iraq is not a legal justification, it is clearly a bootstrap rationale. Having invaded Iraq, overthrown its government and destabilized its security and military organizations, Bush now justifies keeping American troops in Iraq based upon predictions that the situation will descend further into chaos and civil war if our troops leave. Rhetoric of “winning” in Iraq has been replaced with talk of “prevailing,” while neither term has been clearly defined for the American public nor the military personnel asked to sacrifice life and limb for the mission. In this regard, the current situation resembles Viet Nam.
Sen. Kennedy is on the right track in his Senate speech declaring that under any analysis possible, the current situation in Iraq does not resemble or reflect the circumstances or purpose for which Congress was requested to grant authority for military action in Iraq. Some might argue that by continuing to fund the continuously morphing “Mission” advanced by the Administration, Congress has implicitly renewed the authorization. However flawed this argument may be, it also supports the argument that cutting funding is an appropriate way to revoke that implied consent. Cutting off funding for any increase in troop deployment should be accompanied by a conditional appropriation that requires the President to provide Congress withy a detailed plan for extricating US military forces from Iraq.
But Congress needs to go a step further. An express finding that the basis for the prior authorization was unsubstantiated should be followed by a vote to rescind the authority. This action of cutting off the legal foundation for pursuing the “Mission” that Bush advances in greater and greater isolation would leave the President no choice except to develop and execute a strategy for bringing the troops home as promptly and safely as possible. While Bush is the Commander in Chief of military forces, this function only enables him to determine the manner in which military action authorized by Congress can be carried out. He does not have the unilateral authority to declare war or prosecute a military action not authorized by Treaty or an act of Congress.
When a beast has gone mad and is out of control, it must be “run to ground” and captured so that it cannot do harm to others. In a figurative sense, President Bush is acting like a mad animal. He refuses to listen to the mandate of the public, clearly expressed in the election last fall. He refuses to listen to military and foreign policy experts who have advised him or the risks and errors of his actions. He rejects the concerns of Democratic legislators as partisan sniping, and also rejects the advice and concerns expressed by members of his own party.
And so it falls to the Congress that unleashed the beast to run him to ground. To be sure, it is a scary and downright unpleasant task. We all would hope that the president would wake up some morning and see the situation as it really is and act rationally. But he has proven that he is incapable or unwilling to see past the delusions. Unless and until Congress takes action, the death toll and irreparable damage caused by the Bush rampage in Iraq will increase. So the time has clearly come to “cut” off the authority and funding for the mission, and to “run” the rampaging and uncontrolled beast to ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment