Well, what do we have here. Yesterday, President Obama had an important meeting at the White House with members of Congress on the war in Afghanistan. At issue, as many of you know, is whether or not Obama should send in more troops, as requested by General McChrystal. This is an extremely important and solemn decision Obama must make. And I have been heartened that he has decided to slow down that decision making, consult Congress, and think through all the consequences of the choice he ultimately makes. Given that this is a sane and thoughtful way to deal with the situation, the GOP is, of course, against it. And John McCain is leading the charge that Obama needs to "hurry up" and not think anything through. Never mind that these are American lives we are talking about. Well, wait until you hear about the exchange between SFRC Chairman Kerry and John McCain had at the White House!
Here is the set up for the meeting:
President Obama is seeking a wide array of views on Afghanistan, his aides say, and he should be getting them at today's meeting with 31 members of Congress.
The guest list ranges from war skeptics like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., to Republicans such as Sen. John McCain who have urged the president to send more troops to Afghanistan.
"The president has and wants to hear from all of those that are involved in decisions about protecting our homeland, keeping our country safe, as well as the deployment of our men and women in uniform," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.
The irony, of course, being that had John McCain been President, I doubt he would have sought the advice from those with opposing viewpoints. We know Bush didn't. Although we knock Obama for continuing attempts for bipartisanship, I still think it is good to bring in contrarians from time to time. That doesn't meen the contrarians are coming in with the same good intentions, as CNN reported:
Leading Republicans urged President Obama to make a swift decision in favor of more U.S. troops for the war in Afghanistan after talks between the president and congressional leaders Tuesday.
Eric Cantor sounded absurd, saying that if Obama doesn't make the decision, in, like, the next 10 seconds we are all going to die!! Unlike Bush who just ignored Afghanistan for the last 7 years in favor of his baby, the Iraq War. But after that boilerplate typical mindless Republican blather, a much more interesting part of the story emerged. Kerry and McCain actually went at it on the role of Congress in war:
And participants said there was another dramatic exchange between two former presidential nominees -- McCain and Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
According to the participants, Kerry told Obama that whether to send more troops into Afghanistan was a "collective" decision, because lawmakers in both parties are prepared to help him sell it to the American people.
But McCain -- who campaigned in 2008 on the argument that he had more experience to make tough calls like this -- stood up to insist that ultimately, the commander-in-chief alone will take the heat.
When asked by a reporter after the White House meeting if this decision is a test for Obama as head of the armed forces, McCain said, "Of course it is, and I think the president is aware of it."
I mean, wow. This really represents McCain's view (and frighteningly, he may have been President with this warped viewpoint)! Congress apparently has no role to play in war. Kerry had the last word, and it is a total smackdown:
A spokesman for Kerry said the senator is "well-acquainted with his copy of the Constitution." But what Kerry said was once Obama reaches a decision, lawmakers "will stand collectively with the president in supporting that decision as representatives of the American people."
Schwoom!!! McCain is defeated in debate by his old friend once again! To the White House's credit, they honored the Constitution:
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has said Obama would consult with Congress on his eventual decision.
In case, you wanted a double check, ahem.
Update
There have been some comments by people who question the premise of Congress's role in terms of war powers beyond the power of the purse. Well, I just wanted to provide some additional information, on why this is such a contentious issue. It has been going on since the inception of this country, and is a constant tug of war (no pun intended).
Stars and Stripes tackled the issue in 2008:
At the heart of the issue is confusion over how the Constitution lays out war powers.
The framers wrote in the Constitution that Congress has the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, and to repel invasions, but they also named the president as commander in chief, giving him the power to order the armed forces to defend the country.
Nowhere do they specify whose power trumps the other. Over the years both the executive and legislative branches have claimed sole authority.
The commission noted that federal courts have refused to enter the debate.
In 1973, Congress tried to resolve the constitutional divide through a War Powers Resolution, requiring the president to end combat operations overseas within 90 days unless Congress approves the fighting.
But Baker and critics said that law has been largely ineffective, since every president since Richard Nixon has deemed the law an unconstitutional breach of presidential powers. None has filed the paperwork to start the 90-day timeline, and Congress has not challenged the White House in court.
The above article is about a proposal put forth by former Secretaries of State Jim Baker and Warren Christopher. Their proposal was discussed during a Senate Foreign Relations hearing chaired by John Kerry. However, the Baker/Christopher proposal may be problematic as well, even as it tries to make sure that the President consults with Congress. Senator Feingold had some excellent points, which you can read about if you want to get into the weeds of this very important issue.
The point is that it is clear Chairman Kerry thinks Congress has a more vital role to play during war time than the previous Republican Congress under Bush. McCain wants to keep giving the President all of that power. There are major Constitutional implications here, and anyone who thinks it is so simple that the President has all the power, save the funding, I suggest you dig in a bit more deeply. I am in favor of the legislative branch taking back some of the power taken away from it since the latter part of the 20th century.
Update 2
TPM has more on the meeting, including McCain being rude to the President (accusing him of making the decision at a "leisurely" pace). Check out the link for the whole story. They also have a little bit more detail on the Kerry/McCain exchange, for which I agree with Senator Kerry wholeheartedly:
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) said everyone at the table in the State Dining Room shouldered part of the responsibility for the decision.
A Senate aide told TPMDC that Kerry said, "Mr. President, this is your ultimate decision, but it's shared by the Congress because together we have to hold together the consent of the American people for this policy, that's one of the lessons of Vietnam."
McCain later said he disagreed with his colleague. "This is your decision - your sole decision," he told Obama.
Frankly, their disagreement on this issue is rooted in their disagreement on the Vietnam War.