Bush to defy troop withdrawal legislation

Just so you know:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war today and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Many of you likely know this already from having watched the Sunday shows. And many of you knew it even without hearing it again today.

Of course, Democrats pushed back to some extent, too:

But Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. "The president needs a check and a balance," said Levin, D-Mich.

I agree. He needs a check and balance. And while I applaud Levin's efforts, I do so only because I know they kick the can further down the road we all know we're bound to travel here. Senator Levin says the president needs a check and balance, but I don't think he's hearing Secretary Rice. The president will defy your legislation.

The president will defy your legislation.

Now, that doesn't mean this isn't something Levin and his colleagues aren't going to want to see for themselves. But time's a-wastin'. Let's get this show on the road, already. We know what's going to happen, and we know what your choices are going to be at the end of the road: roll over, or impeach.

How do we know? Well, Rice says so. On what basis? Well, to the extent that she needs a basis for a statement like that, she's probably pointing to the fact that this "administration" believes Congress is literally powerless to stop the war.

Levin and his colleagues propose to repeal the 2002 AUMF, replacing it with a resolution that would restrict the use of American forces in Iraq and eventually force a withdrawal. On what grounds does the president plan to defy this? Well, he's got a multilayered strategy available to him. For one thing, he could opt to fall back on the 2001 AUMF -- the one originally passed to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan -- by claiming (as he's already done on numerous occasions) that Iraq is part of the greater war on terror, and that since al Qaeda is (now) operating in Iraq, the 2001 AUMF authorizes our continued presence there.

But couldn't we then amend the 2001 AUMF? Sure, assuming you could get the votes for it. But dig this: Bush doesn't think he needs the 2001 AUMF either. John Yoo tells us why:

In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution [the AUMF], Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents.

Recognized. Not granted.

Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.

If this strikes you as familiar, it may be because I've shown it to you before.

And the same conclusion holds now as held then:

Yoo's theories having reduced Congress to a cipher, from the White House point of view, it hardly makes a difference how they opt to wait out the last two years of Bush's term.

If they'd like to spend it methodically demonstrating Yoo's point for the American public, that option is open to them, and the path runs through Congressional "oversight," subpoenas, repeal of the AUMF and all the other goodies that have been dangled before us as "alternatives" to impeachment.

Again, I applaud the effort to the extent that it hastens the inevitable, but I told you a month ago (and, for the record, several times before that) what Bush's response to this -- and everything else in the Democratic arsenal -- was going to be, and it'll be another month before Levin even puts himself in a position to get that answer.

Yes, I know impeachment is "off the table." But we'll cross paths with it soon enough, since Bush keeps pulling our chairs out from under us.