You’re On Your Own, Ted
With much cheering and high-fiving from the left, Ted "Mind If I Drive Your Daughter Home" Kennedy introduced his Cut the American Troops Off at The Knees bill of 2007. Senate leaders promptly kicked Teddy under the carpet and introduced a non-binding resolution which will not try to limit funds.
Sen. Ted Kennedy is the Senate Democrats' army of one, trying to launch a revolution when they would prefer cordial discussion. Scheduled to discuss health care at the National Press Club, Kennedy uncorked a stemwinder about the Democrats' responsibility to shut down the Iraq war. He is proposing legislation that would prevent the troop surge President Bush will unveil tomorrow night by prohibiting additional troops and additional dollars for it. Kennedy implored his brothers and sisters in Congress to resist the president's specific new plan, and to revive their branch of government—to "reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice."
"We have the solemn obligation now to show the American people that we heard their voices," Kennedy thundered. Democrats in Congress must fight Bush with something more than "pale actions, timid gestures and empty rhetoric."
Shortly afterward, across town in the U.S. Capitol, the new Senate Democratic leaders took their place before the microphones just off the Senate floor to put forward their plan: a bipartisan, nonbinding bill called the Pale Action and Timid Gesture Resolution. That wasn't the real name, of course, but it is exactly what Kennedy insisted Congress should not do. Afterward, I asked Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois what had happened to his own suggestion that Congress limit the number of troops that could fight in Iraq as a way to stop the surge. "That's Senator Kennedy's bill," said the second-highest-ranking Democrat. Yes, but didn't you suggest that troops be limited, I asked? "That's Senator Kennedy's bill." You're on your own, Ted.
Gee, Ted, guess, looks like your pals are treating you like you did Mary Jo Kopechne. About time. Incidentally, Think Progress gives (quite inadvertently, I'm sure) an exact record of the fabulous successes that followed previous Congressional fortes into the Constitutional bailiwick of the Commander in Chief:
December 1970. P.L. 91-652 — Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces. (Note: Cambodia's eventual death toll, 1.7 million)
December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year. (Note: Vietnam's eventual death toll, at least 165,000 but actually much higher.)
June 1983. P.L. 98-43 — The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. The Congress required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon. (Note: No casualty figures, but years more civil war and untold numbers killed)
June 1984. P.L. 98-525 — The Defense Authorization Act. The Congress capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400. (Note: We saved France. We're still paying for that).
November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization. (Note: Blackhawk Down. Any questions?)
Yes, they can and have intervened before. It has an appalling record, however.
UPDATE: Others: STACLU, Wake Up America, Ace, Dan Riehl, (Dan is a bit optimistic on the numbers, I think. But he is absolutely correct in one thing. The Democrats do NOT have a mandate to lose this war. And they had better not even go down that road if they do not want a drubbing in 2008.) OTB, Don Surber, Decision '08, TMV, Talk Left, (who deserves to be quoted here):
The bottom line is clear. WHETHER the United States enters war or CONTINUES at war is the exclusive decision of the Congress. Bt the CONDUCT of that specific war, subject to Congress power of military rulemaking (on torture, the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, etc.), belongs exclusively to the President.
The Congress' power here seems clear to me. IT can END the Iraq war. But it can not dictate how it is conducted on military questions. That power belongs to the President.
And it has ended disastrously when they have violated that, I think.
Other Links to this Post
-
The Anchoress » Dems: Bush is for it, so we’re against it — January 10, 2007 @ 11:04 am
-
Sister Toldjah » Dems determined to repeat ‘nam defeat with a defeat in Iraq — January 10, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
By Kathy, January 9, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
The authors of that “nonbinding resolution” are just as furious with the escalation of this war as Ted Kennedy is, but, unlike him, they do not have the guts to do anything about it.
Despite record-high percentages of Americans who are opposed to any troop increase, Democrats in Congress are STILL out of their minds scared to death of King George. They are *terrified.* It’s really quite pathetic.
By Gaius, January 9, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Wrong, Kathy. They are out of their minds scared of the American public who did not give them a mandate to lose a war and will kill them at the polls if they do.
By Kathy, January 9, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Gaius, you are incredibly deluded if you really believe that. Large majorities of Americans oppose the war and strongly disapprove of the way Bush has handled it. Most Americans think that the war in Iraq has made us less safe, not more. Over 60% of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq.
Have you forgotten that Republicans were kicked out of their majority in Congress, Gaius? That did not happen because Americans want Bush to send more troops to Iraq and continue the war for at least the next two years. Americans did not put Democrats in power to see them vote for and support the same old disastrous Republican policies.
By bRight & Early, January 10, 2007 @ 5:44 am
Kathy, you are incredibly deluded if you really believe that, “Democrats in Congress are STILL out of their minds scared to death of King George.” They are scared of only one thing — losing power.
They seized on the publics discontent with the war to win back the majorities, but they realize (even if you do not) that discontent with the war and the way it is being waged is not the same thing as backing policies that leads to defeat.
By Kathy, January 10, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
So you are saying that the 60-plus percent of Americans who are opposed to sending more troops to Iraq if Pres. Bush says he is going to do that (as opposed to hypothetically) are actually in favor of sending more troops to Iraq?
You are saying that the 72% of Americans who disapprove of the way Bush has handled the Iraq war are in favor of escalating the war?
What about the 56% of Americans who think the Iraq war has gone much worse than Bush expected it to go? Think it’s logical to believe that 56% supports sending more troops?
Here’s what I think: YOU want Pres. Bush to send more troops. YOU think it’s still possible to “win” in Iraq. YOU don’t want to admit that the U.S. war against Iraq is an utter, abject failure. And although large majorities of Americans, AND military commanders in Iraq, AND large numbers of U.S. soldiers in Iraq (if not majorities), AND almost every military and foreign policy expert in Washington do not believe that sending more troops will make anything better in Iraq, YOU still want to do it — so you have to project your own desires onto the larger American public, because otherwise you would have to admit that your position has almost no support at all.
You are saying that the 57% of Americans who now believe that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake are supportive of sending more troops to Iraq?
You are saying that the 72% of Americans who believe that Pres. Bush does not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq would believe that sending 20,000 more troops to spot the Iraqi army fighting Shiites in Sadr City is a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?
By Jon, January 10, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Kathy,
“What about the 56% of Americans who think the Iraq war has gone much worse than Bush expected it to go? Think it’s logical to believe that 56% supports sending more troops?”
Response: Actually, that number is probably closer to 99%. Included in that count is President Bush himself; by his own words btw. And one has nothing to do with the other. To suggest that the American people DON’T want a different direction just because the current strategy has gone worse that the President expected is a HUGE LEAP.
“72% of Americans who disapprove of the way Bush has handled the Iraq war are in favor of escalating the war?”
Response: The war is escalating without the added troops. THAT’S the problem. The troops are to stop-gap and reverse the tide of escalation. To take the term “escalate troop levels†to mean “escalate war†is a liberal twist. Besides, raising troop levels and giving those troops a different mandate than the current troops is doing something different, which 72% of Americans want. Admittedly, some of the 72% would like to cut-and-run and rely on the good will of the jihadist NOT to rape their daughters when they finally reach our shores, but there is no evidence to suggest that many and certainly not most of the 72% want to lose.
“YOU think it’s still possible to “win†in Iraqâ€
Response: Yes I do, I don’t hate my country.
“YOU don’t want to admit that the U.S. war against Iraq is an utter, abject failureâ€
Response: Base on THAT comment, YOU should stop trying to keep President Bush from fighting this war since up till now your efforts to keep Bush from fighting this war have been an “abject failureâ€. If you feel instead that your effort might succeed in the future despite the results up till now, then why do you deny such a reality for those who don’t want to cow-tow to the jihadists and feel a new strategy COULD work better than the current strategy.
“You are saying that the 57% of Americans who now believe that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake are supportive of sending more troops to Iraq?â€
Response: Once again BIG LEAP. And even you’re statement is revealing: “who now believeâ€. So based on your statement, when we actually DID go into Iraq it was right? It’s was only a mistake because “NOW†they feel that way?
“You are saying that the 72% of Americans who believe that Pres. Bush does not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq would believe that sending 20,000 more troops to spot the Iraqi army fighting Shiites in Sadr City is a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?â€
Response: Once again, you’re LEAPING to conclusions. Maybe they would. One does not negate the other. And btw, 80% of Americans believe that the Democrats don’t have a plan, not alone a clear plan.