We hear it every day in DC: President Obama acts like a dictator, bending his authority beyond the scope of executive action. Or President Obama's foreign policy is too weak-kneed, not robust like Putin's. Republicans will praise Putin and other thugs for "schooling" Obama, acting "decisively" and showing "real" strength, but when the President does go it alone, often because Congress is obstructing a bill or appointment, he's called a tyrant. No surprise, it's been going on for years.
There is, however, one policy presidents should not own, one arena that demands congressional oversight. Among the many roles and responsibilities of Congress listed in Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution, perhaps none is more consequential than the power "to declare war."
Today's GOP started moaning and griping even before Obama fulfilled George Bush's 2008 pledge to exit Iraq: We didn't leave enough troops behind! We didn't arm the "good" rebels! They complain in the House and Senate chambers, on Sunday talk shows and 24/7 on Fox. So if they're so darn certain President Obama is screwing up the Middle East, and if the theater of war is their responsibility, why don't they do their friggin' job already? Today:
The House of Representatives rejected an amendment to a defense bill on Thursday that would have forced lawmakers to vote on a formal authorization for the use of military force against Islamic State.
The House voted 231 to 196 to defeat the amendment sponsored by Representative Adam Schiff. Republicans, who control a majority of seats in the House, largely voted against the amendment and Schiff's fellow Democrats generally backed it.
President Obama, as everyone knows,
asked Congress in February to debate and vote on appropriations and strategies for strikes against ISIS. But Republicans rejected his call to deliberate in Congress, where a miscalculated vote might threaten one's re-election bid. Instead, they took their tough talk to town halls, cable TV and the primary circus, where another
invasion and "bombing them back to the Stone Age" seems to be the acceptable platform for GOP presidential candidates (although Trump isn't revealing his plan, except
to say it's "foolproof").
So where is Congress, then? This is the same body that complained in 2011 because Obama increased military involvement in Libya without their consent, but now they're content to carp from the sidelines. For all their bellyaching about Obama's "passive" foreign policy, I still have not heard one Republican, hawk or otherwise, explain why he or she won't debate funding for this stupid war, especially as it continues to grow — another couple hundred advisors every month or so. Heck, Congress sure has time to debate more abortion restrictions.
We know why: election posturing. As soldiers die. Real spines in DC.