Something Bush said during his little press conference on Thursday really stuck with me, and that was when he attempted to explain to the press corps what, in his opinion, Congress' role in a war is.
What he seems to forget is that there is precedent for Congress reeling in a renegade president when a war has gotten out of control.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. A question for you about the process you're describing of your decision-making as Commander-in-Chief. Have you entertained the idea that at some point Congress may take some of that sole decision-making power away, through legislation? And can you tell us, are you still committed to vetoing any troop withdrawal deadline?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean in this interim period? Yes. I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. I'm certainly interested in their opinion, but trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure, as far as I'm concerned, and we can't afford to fail.
I'll work with Congress; I'll listen to Congress. Congress has got all the right to appropriate money. But the idea of telling our military how to conduct operations, for example, or how to deal with troop strength, I don't think it makes sense. I don't think it makes sense today, nor do I think it's a good precedent for the future. And so the role of the Commander-in-Chief is, of course, to consult with Congress.
Q So if Reed-Levin or anything like it were to pass and set a --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would hope they wouldn't pass, Jim. But I --
Q But what if they've got --
THE PRESIDENT: Let me make sure you understand what I'm saying. Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops. What you're asking is whether or not Congress ought to be basically determining how troops are positioned, or troop strength. And I don't think that would be good for the country.
Bush may not think Congress should have a say in military operations, and it is true that they did give him authorization to invade Iraq. However, they do have the right to reverse that decision at anytime, not just after General Patraeus' September report is given.
In 1973, the 93rd US Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in response to Nixon waging war in Vietnam without congressional authorization. While this resolution only insists that the President receive Congress' approval to start a war, it also serves as a precedent giving Congress regulatory power over a President in a time of war.
I believe that Congress should not only cease funding the war in Iraq, which is within their constitutional power, but also pass a resolution similar to the War Powers Resolution requiring Congress to act responsibily should the President refuse to end a war that we cannot win. Put an Amendment in the Constitution so that there is no confusion. Giving a President sole authority to continuously prolong a war is the makings of tyranny, and Congress needs to not only protect our servicemen and women from years of endless and exhausting combat, but also to protect our Democracy.