This diary is a collaborative effort by srkp23, Got a Grip, nonnie9999, possum, mikk0, and Patriot Daily ... the first of many we hope. We're keeping our fingers crossed that dK.4 will integrate some kind of collaborative diary writing feature.
This diary makes the case that Sen. Kennedy's legislation is an effective means to stop Bush and asks that we take action today by telling Congress to pass this bill now. Some Democrats want to vote on a nonbinding resolution that states their opposition to Bush's plans. Even if Democrats can prevent a threatened filibuster, the only thing achieved is an official statement of dissent similar to press reports of how some lawmakers do not support Bush. Other Democrats want to hold hearings to establish facts to support legislation. However, if Kennedy's legislation is not passed, then these alternatives will be mooted because Bush will have the escalated troops in Iraq before the Democrats take action.
If you already support his legislation, and are short on time, please skip down to the take action part of the diary. Taking action only requires 1 minute. Yes, we timed it!
Time is truly of the essence. Do you have 1 minute to save lives?
Bush says he has the power to escalate troops and not even Congress can stop him:
Q: If you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do.
BUSH: I think I've got, in this situation I do, yeah. I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward.
We have another constitutional crisis in the works. While Mr. Decider sounds cocky and confident, neither the law nor the politics is in his favor. And Mr. Decider, despite all evidence to the contrary, is rigidly sticking to the premise that more war, and only more war, will be the savior of Iraq from all the disastrous consequences of his mighty foreign policy blunders.
It is also possible that Bush's escalation will be used to spread the war to Iran. While the military says there are "no immediate plans to attack targets in Iran," Bush has vowed to "destroy" the Iranian networks that Bush says are aiding Iraqi insurgents. The military assures us that Bush is only referring to operations inside Iraq because "any kind of military action inside Iran itself, that would be a very last resort."
Bush indicates that HIS plan must prevail because critics can not even offer an alternative. Well, Senator Kennedy offered an alternative days before Bush proclaimed his "new" plan to escalate troops to stop the civil war in Iraq -- even though prior escalations may have worsened the situation in Iraq, not improved it. Kennedy's alternative is simple, but may effectively block Bush from escalating this war and spreading the conflict into Iran. Then, Congress can debate how to clean up Bush's mess.
(1) The Kennedy Legislation (pdf file) prohibits Bush from using any federal funds for troop escalation without prior Congressional approval.
This is the heart of his bill:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the number for such forces which existed as of January 9, 2007, without a specific authorization of Congress by law for such an increase."
Democratic Rep. Edward Markey is proposing similar legislation in the House which requires that Congress expressly authorize any escalation of the war. Kennedy and Markey are not alone. More than 70% of Americans believe Bush needs to obtain Congressional approval before he commits more troops to Iraq. If you agree, please take action now.
Kennedy's legislation is simple, legal and consistent with historical precedent.
(a) Congress Has Constitutional Power To Legislate On Appropriations For War.
Kennedy's legislation addresses the broad issue of war appropriations. Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8 of our federal Constitution "to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
The framers intentionally accorded war powers to two different branches of government so that neither Congress nor the President could unilaterally go to war. And, that is exactly what Bush is planning - to escalate the Iraq war and perhaps expand the war into Iran without any input from Congress.
(b) Congress Has The Right To Impose Conditions On War Funds.
Kennedy's legislation imposes one primary condition on war funds: The federal government may not use any funds appropriated by Congress for troop escalation without prior Congressional approval.
Congress has the right to impose any condition on war funding. These conditions can block funding for troop escalation, stop funding of Bush's stop loss program to force troops to stay beyond their normal deployment period, demand a specific withdrawal plan or stop the war.
It appears that Kennedy intentionally limited his plan to one broad condition of Congressional approval so that it would cover the various means of escalating the war that may not even be on the table now. Then, when Congress needs to provide its approval, it can debate and refine how that authorization should be worded rather than limiting the authorization upfront by his proposal. After all, facts and circumstances change. This is really quite brilliant when dealing with Bush because the key is to "draft constraints into legislation without loopholes" which Bush would drive a truck through. For example, "President Nixon circumvented an amendment banning funding for combat troops in Laos by describing the forces as `military equipment delivery teams - end use supervisors.'"
Legal experts say that if Congress blocks funding, Bush would have "little choice but to follow the law" because the Constitution explicitly delegates power to Congress to appropriate funds. Even legal scholars usually aligned with Bush agree that Congress has the power to block troop escalation and could "stop the war by choking off funding." Remember John Yoo, the Berkeley law professor and chief legal architect of torture and abuse of Guantanamo Bay prisoners? Even this advocate of presidential power grabs says that the power of Congress over the budget is so absolute that "lawmakers could end the war altogether if they chose:"
"It's perfectly constitutional and legal for Congress to cut off funds for any war it doesn't want the country to fight, and it's done that before," Yoo said in an interview, referring to the cutoff of funds for Vietnam that Congress approved in 1973.
By supporting Kennedy's legislation, would we be making an extraordinary request of our lawmakers to cut off funds? No, as Yoo noted, "Congress cuts funds off for programs it doesn't like all the time." Many of those votes no likely were bought and paid for by the powerful special interest groups who have privileged access to our lawmakers to stop programs that would have benefited us. It is time to flex the muscles of our grassroots power by flooding Congress with our emails, letters, phone calls and faxes.
(c) Congress Has Exercised This Right To Impose Conditions In Prior Wars And Military Actions.
If Congress blocks Bush, it will not be the first time that Congress imposed conditions on how a President could use appropriated war funds. Congress started imposing conditions during the Mexican War and also in the Civil War, and has continued over the years to use its power to manage or end conflicts. "Congress prohibited the United States from going into Angola by conditioning funds. They required the United States to leave Somalia. They put restrictions on Bosnia. They put limitations on contra funding." SusanG listed other examples of legislative oversight over military funding:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(2) Bush's Texas Two-Step Response Of Delaying And Ducking.
Bush knows that if he submits a request to Congress to fund his troop escalation that Congress has every legal right to condition that appropriation on any terms Congress wishes, such as no funds for escalation, timeline for troop withdrawal, or even stopping the war entirely. Given that funding for Iraq for this year has already been approved, a new bill would have to be passed for the additional troops.
However, White House Press Secretary Snow stated last Friday that money is in the budget to fund troop escalation in Iraq until May or June of this year. Snow also indicated that the Bush plan is to not seek more funds until that time, stating that lawmakers can debate a troop increase "a few months from now when the administration needs more money." That's right. The Bush plan is to deploy our troops to Iraq now, and then once the troops are in Iraq, come to Congress this Spring or Summer to ask Congress to pay for the troop escalation after it has been completed. At that point, no lawmaker will refuse funds because both parties have made it clear that no funds will be denied to troops who are already in Iraq.
Step 1: Ship The Troops To Iraq Before Congress Takes Action.
Sneaky little Bush even commenced his troop escalation before his public address to the nation to explain his "new" war policy. ABC News reported that 90 advance troops from the 82nd Airborne arrived in Iraq on last Wednesday and an additional battalion of 800 troops from the same division were expected to arrive on the following day. And, as Hunter reported, Bush is partially obtaining troops for his escalation by redeploying troops from Afghanistan to Iraq at a time when the Afghanistan war is heating up and commanders have been desperately seeking more troops in Afghanistan.
ABC News reports that the troop escalation will be completed in 90-120 days. However, if Bush continues at the escalation rate of 800 troops a day, it would only take 25 days to have 20,000 troops in Iraq.
Moreover, Bush does not have to have the troops actually in Iraq in order for this escalation to be accomplished before Congress takes action. Bush may just use the Teddy Roosevelt back door strategy:
"He`s more likely to rush troops to Iraq and do what Teddy Roosevelt did with the Great White Fleet. Congress didn`t want to send the fleet around the world. So Teddy Roosevelt sent it halfway around the world and said, They`re going to run out of gas. I suggest you send the rest."
Step 2: Divert Funds From Original Purpose And Then Seek Escalation Funds After Troop Escalation Completed.
Bait and switch is how Bush plays the funding game. Most of this war has been funded by emergency or supplemental appropriations rather than the normal budget process which is subject to more "rigorous congressional oversight."
Bush submits to Congress a supplemental funding request that on paper is a valid reason not objected to by Congress. Then, some portion of those funds are diverted for some unidentified reason that is not disclosed to Congress or the American people. Then, the Bush Team or the military appear before Congress seeking more emergency funds to replace the monies that were diverted. These replacement funds are usually for some laudable purpose that not even a dove would refuse, like medical supplies or equipment for our troops. For example, it was reported last summer that the Army diverted funds from US military bases to the Iraq War. "Bases have had to cut operations, such as shorter mess-hall hours, to save money. Army repair depots do not have enough money to fix broken weapons systems." The Army then asked for emergency appropriations from Congress needed for the military readiness here at home. And, in 2004, it was reported that the Bush Team diverted $700 million from the Afghanistan War in order to prepare for the US invasion of Iraq without informing Congress.
We may never know how often such "diversions" of funds occurred because Bush has inappropriately used the emergency funding route - not for emergencies but for a war that has existed for years. Bush has used 13 emergency spending requests for these wars while only 2 supplemental requests had been made during 11 years of Vietnam and one request for the Korean War. While the Army says they can accurately calculate war costs, the White House does "not want those costs included in the base budget."
Tired of Bush evading the budget process, Congress passed a law requiring next year's defense budget to include the funding for the wars and a detailed justification for the funds. However, Bush just whipped out another signing statement that he may ignore that law.
However, Kennedy's legislation may put a damper on Bush's transfer and diversion shell game.
This legislation provides that "notwithstanding any other provision of law, no federal funds may be obligated or expended" for troop escalation without prior Congressional approval. If the law is enacted now, then Bush would be prohibited from using any federal monies for the escalation.
(3) Kennedy's Legislation Is Preemptive Response To Bush's Two Step Scam.
Kennedy's legislation does not just address troop funding, but also Congressional authorization for war. This legislation would essentially repeal the 2002 resolution of authority provided to Bush for the Iraq War (which he cites ad nauseam when he keeps on ignoring the legislative branch) on the grounds that the "original mandate authorizing the Iraq war has expired because `the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress'" and because the 2002 resolution was approved based on lies (WMD, al-qaeda links to Saddam and 9/11, etc.)
The 2002 resolution would no longer govern the Iraq war (or, by Bush's own extension, the "war on terror.") If Bush wants to pursue escalation in Iraq, this legislation requires Bush to present a plan to Congress and then Congress must approve his plan prior to escalation. As stated by a former constitutional adviser to the Clinton administration, "even if the President does not submit his plan for congressional approval, Congress is constitutionally empowered to require him to do so."
So, while Bush may be all giddy and jumping with glee that his two-step would block Congress from blocking him, Bush will need to develop a Plan B should Kennedy's legislation be passed NOW.
(4) What will Bush do if Kennedy's bill is submitted for signing into law?
(a) Bush may not have the votes to prevent an override of his veto.
Bush's escalation plan is supported by so few people that Democrats should be able to round up enough votes to override any veto by Bush. Bush's plan is opposed by 70% of Americans. Robert Novak's survey of Senate Republicans showed that only 12 supported troop escalation at the beginning of this year. And, an annual poll conducted by the The Military Times of service members at the end of last month showed only 38% supported shipping more troops to Iraq or escalation.
The Democrats only need 2/3 or 67 votes to give Bush's veto the political finger. Even if Novak's survey is not accurate, some Republicans clearly do not support Bush's plan. zeus4prez wrote an outstanding diary about the Republicans who have stated their opposition of Bush's escalation or are leaning towards nonsupport. zeus4prez provides the position of these Republicans and contact information for both email and phone. How about a little heart from you so that we can get a veto-proof 2/3?
(b) If Congress votes to cut off funding for Bush's troop escalation, Bush does not have constitutional power to continue war by using funds approved by Congress for other purposes.
If Congress passes Kennedy's legislation and then votes for a ban on using money for escalation, then Bush would have "few legal recourses" because "money is appropriated for specific purposes, and if you use it for something it's not appropriated for, that's illegal." While Bush has "certain discretion to transfer money, that's not enough to fund this war, and Congress could always say that no transfer authority shall be used to frustrate the purposes of this legislation." Such an express prohibition against transfer authority may prevent Bush from trying to continue with his past practice of diverting war funds to pay for things not disclosed to Congress.
(c) Bush's signing statement technique may be rendered impotent if Kennedy's legislation is enacted.
Can Bush sign Kennedy's bill into law and issue another signing statement that he will use existing funds for escalation because Congress can't tell him what to do? Sure, Bush apparently can do anything as Mr. Unitary Executive. However, if Bush does so with an appropriations bill, then legal scholar Jonathan Turley says his actions would essentially constitute a "theft" because it's "like taking something out of the transportation budget. You are required to use funds given to you for the purposes for which they are given."
Congress has constitutional power to deny funds to pay for escalation, impose conditions on appropriations and require Bush to seek Congressional approval prior to implementing escalation. Lawmakers hesitate to use this power - even though it has been successfully used in the past - because they fear that political opponents will paint them as unpatriotic, unsupportive of troops, on the side of terrorists - pick the top favs of the GOP's groundless memes. Despite overwhelming public support and the recent mandate of November elections, lawmakers have "only a limited appetite for a showdown with the White House." The fear of lawmakers should be that if they don't take action now to stop Bush, then they will have to face the reality of unforgiving voters. Give Congress an appetite. Make them hungry for democracy. Take. Action. Now.
Time To Take Action
SIGN THESE ONLINE PETITIONS and e-mail them to others:
Petition in support of Sen. Kennedy's legislation.
Moveon's petition against the escalation.
Senator Feingold's petition calling for redeployment.
EMAIL & CALL YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE
ActForChange has an easy service to email lawmakers that you support Kennedy's legislation to block funding of troop escalation. It takes less than 1 minute to send this email.
Simply type in your name and address, and the service sends your email to your Senators and your Representatives. You may send the email with the default message, edit the default message or create your own message.
Please take a look at zeus4prez's excellent diary about which R senators we need to pressure in order to build a veto-proof majority against the escalation, and then contact one or more of them.
Enter your zipcode here to find complete contact information for your congresspeople. Call, email, and/or fax them. Bookmark the page for future reference. Or better yet, program their numbers into your cell phone! Oh, and use this great online tool to fax your congresspeople directly from your web browser.
WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Use this tool to write letters to the editors of national, regional and local newspapers about the escalation of troops in Iraq. Start by entering your zip code on the page, and then make use of the Democratic talking points to compose your letter.
Want to start a LTE writing group, or need tips on how to write a LTE that will be accepted for publication, check out this link.
OTHER WAYS TO REGISTER YOUR PROTEST
Consider protesting the good old-fashioned way ... with your body and voice at the planned massive anti-war and anti-escalation rally in Washington DC on January 27, 2007 being sponsored by United for Peace and Justice.
Download some anti-war posters and put them in your windows at home and in your car.
One final thought. Why don't you send these take action links to your friends and family? It is long past due for us to take back our country.