Also I’m glad that the AUMF is as specific as it should be. Congress does need to rescind an AUMF immediately — the Afghanistan one. Have you ever read that? “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

It’s so vague that it gives him nearly unlimited leeway. They need to strike this down and issue a specific resolution for operating in Afghanistan only.

If the resolution said, “If troops are not out of Iraq by X date, then Congress declares that all funding for those troops will end on that date.” that would be fine – a clear call to defund the war. But the resolution says nothing of the sort:

(b) On or before October 1, 2007, the President —

(1) shall certify to the Congress that the Government of Iraq has enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis; adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections; reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws; amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in article 137 of such constitution; and allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis; or

(2) shall report to Congress that he is unable to make such certification.

(c) If in the transmissions to Congress required by subsection (a) the President determines that any of the conditions specified in each subsection have not been met, or if the President is unable to make the certification specified in subsection (b) by the required date, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

(d) If the President makes the certification specified in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than March 1, 2008, and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act are immediately available for obligation and expenditure to plan and execute a safe and orderly redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq, as specified in subsections (c) and (d).

(f) After the conclusion of the 180-day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

(1) Protecting Amercian diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.

(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.

(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

For those still in denial about what the AUMF says, here are the appropriate passages:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.–In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.–
(1) Specific statutory authorization.–Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.–Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

You’re dead wrong on the law, Shaun. Congress did indeed authorize the Iraq invasion using their declaratory war authority. There’s no “Constitutional crisis� there, only the inability and/or unwillingness of the Democratic caucus to take a stand and either rescind the AUMF or defund the war. “Brave Sir Robin� chickens**ts.

So by your reckoning the only way the war can end on terms other than the president’s is for Congress to unauthorize the invaison. But where’s that going to leave California’s spinach farmers?

It’s that simple.

Why don’t they? It is very simple. To do so would be political suicide if the middle east goes up in flames after we leave. I am not saying it would but IF it did. They would be held accountable and be out of power for the next 12 years (For providing evidence they are clueless when it comes to foreign policy and national defense)while the Republicans cleaned up their mess.

It is politics pure and simple. It is Nancy Pelosi and company playing mind games with Americans. If they had real guts they would vote on Binding resolutions. They would revoke the war powers act. They would do what they are blustering about doing instead of screaming at the top of their lungs in public while in private hanging out with their buds and drinking a “beer” and planning their next “Wool over the eyes strategy.”

Instead they are playing mind games with American voters. Making it look as if they are doing something but in the end doing nothing.

The fact is that even though they might be acting cynical, dishonest and cowardly they can’t actually end the war with the votes they have. I think holding the President’s feet to the fire and making him meet his own goals (where progress is reported by him afterall) is actually a pretty good thing. It’ll keep the focus on the stated goals and rationale for being there instead of letting our objectives slip completely into rhetoric based on Friedman units of time (the next six months are important and then we’ll be around the bend).

Your upset over Congress not following Roberts Rules of Order or whatever is a great example of the kind of distractions I just addressed.

As it is, the pending House and Senate bills concern attaching strings to supplemental appropriations, and if that ain’t a form of defunding I don’t know what is.

Face facts: The war will not end on your terms. Nor on mine, for that matter. But it has to end.

My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)

JB: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction … Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever.

It was Truman who first sent US soldiers to Vietnam, and JFK who first escalated them. Johnson asked for and got a legal “declaration of war” for all Constitutional purposes with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was rescinded by Congress in 1971 when we were already drawing down troops. No Constitutional crisis. No President yet has failed to assert that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is an encroachment of executive branch powers, and no Congress or White House has yet pushed the issue.

Nor was Nixon’s resignation a “Constitutional crisis.” He asserted executive privilege, SCOTUS ruled against him in particulars (namely that executive privilege is not a bar against providing evidence in a criminal investigation, as compared to a political one) and he handed over the evidence and resigned. Had he refused to had over the evidence in the face of the SCOTUS ruling, THAT would have been a Constitutional crisis.

You’re dead wrong on the law, Shaun. Congress did indeed authorize the Iraq invasion using their declaratory war authority. There’s no “Constitutional crisis” there, only the inability and/or unwillingness of the Democratic caucus to take a stand and either rescind the AUMF or defund the war. “Brave Sir Robin” chickens**ts.

Fine. I’m not saying being against the war is bad, or evil, or unamerican – it’s a completely valid viewpoint. The problem I have is that those in Congress are not willing to end the war in way consistent with their constitutional powers – by defunding it or repealing the AUMF. Why aren’t they willing to do that? Why aren’t they fighting to have that vote?

The answer is, of course, is they don’t want to pay the political price that legitimate course of action would cost. It’s easier for them to pass nonbinding resolutions and measures that encroach on executive power by attempting to manage the war. It’s cynical, dishonest and cowardly.

I can respect those who are against the war, who think we need to pull out now. That’s a completely valid position, but those with that position should support ending it using Congressional power to do, not bleeding it dry in an obviously cynical political strategy.

In short, stand up for your principles and support the repeal of the AUMF and defunding the war altogether.

By golly, you’ve hit on something huge. This war thingie is really complicated. (Just ask the folks in Tal Afar about that.)

There comes a point when the executive’s malfeasance — in this case the conduct of a Iraq war now in its fifth year with no end in sight and in LBJ’s case his unilateral declaration of war in Vietnam — must be addressed.

We have reached that point. Now. Today. Right now.

Bellyaching about the consequences of a withdrawal before the entire country is in ruins, pork for California spinach farmers, ulterior political motives and all of the other stuff that Bush sycophants are throwing on the fire are mere distractions.

The constitutional crisis here is that Congress is attempting to manage the war which is clearly an executive responsibility. Congress has a right to withdraw funding and cancel the AUMF to end the war – both actions are clearly within Congress’ mandate – but the Democrats don’t do that. Why? The answer, of course, is that they don’t have the votes, but more important than that, they don’t want any responsibility for anything that happens in the war. I agree with Thomas Sowell here:

If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it?

But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences—and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.

The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.

There is no sign that they want to change that politically winning strategy now. Their non-binding resolutions against the war are a perfect expression of that strategy.

These resolutions put them on record as being against the war without taking the responsibility for ending it.

The Constitutional crisis, if there is any at all, is Democratic meddling in the executive’s roll as Commander in Chief and failing to do their duty, stand up, and go on record supporting the repeal of the AUMF and defund the war.

I will grant you that crises are in the eyes of beholder.

In my view, this is a classic showdown over whether Congress can limit the president’s war powers legislatively and whether the president can curb Congress’s efforts to limit those powers.