Razzle-Dazzle
Time In Washington
By Kevin B. Zeese
28 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
The
Democrats reaped the benefit of voter anger at the Iraq war and occupation
on November 7 and regained control of both chambers of Congress. Will
the Democrats satisfy the desire to end the Iraq War? Sadly, the initial
signs are that voters are likely to get a lot of razzle-dazzle in Washington,
but not much change in policy.
Both parties got the message
and are already putting on a show for voters. President Bush immediately
accepted the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and
has been highlighting an internal review of Iraq by the Department of
Defense and an external review by the Baker-Hamilton led Iraq Study
Group set up
by Congress. Now he’s on his way to the Middle East to meet
with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He’s even dropped the ‘stay
the course’ rhetoric.
The Democrats are also starting
their show for the voters. Senator Biden is promising hearings. Incoming
Speaker Pelosi is saying she wants
to end this war. Senator Levin is urging the beginning of withdrawal
in the next few months. Rep. Conyers and Waxman are planning investigations.
But not too far under the
razzle-dazzle there are some troubling signs. President
Bush is saying that losing is not an option but that “the
task in Iraq is going to take a while” and concluded “We'll
succeed unless we quit.” He warned the Iraq
Study Group of any sudden change in course saying “I believe
that it's important for us to succeed in Iraq, not only for our security
but for the security of the Middle East.” And, leaks out of the
internal DoD review show they have already rejected the “Go
Home” option of getting out of Iraq and are leaning toward a hybrid
solution of “Go Big” by increasing the number of troops
by 20,000 to 30,000 temporarily and “Go Long” by planning
for a long-term stay in Iraq. Looks like “stay the course”
in reality if not in rhetoric.
What can Congress do in the
face of a commander in chief that will not change course? In October,
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino asked, “How would they force
the president to withdraw troops? Yell?” On September 26 before
the election, Rep. Charlie Rangel explained to the Hill how it could
be stopped, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t
you?” As John
Walsh wrote recently:
“Bush is now asking for another $127 billion to ‘stay the
course.’ If either the House or the Senate refuses to pass that
request, the war cannot be prosecuted. It only requires a simple majority
in one chamber House or Senate. That is it. The power is there.”
Indeed, the most important
power the Democrats have is the “power of the purse.” This
is the first article described in the Constitutional powers of the Congress.
The Constitution does not to put war making power in the hands of the
president. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and beyond that,
as James Madison said during the Virginia ratifying convention, Congress's
power of the purse controls the president’s war-making power.
Congress has complete control over the raising, funding, and size of
the military. It can block a president's war-making simply by refusing
to allocate funds for a conflict. Senator Byrd described this as:
“. . . the fulcrum
of the people's leverage. As enshrined in the Constitution, it is one
of the chief protectors of all our cherished freedoms. This control
of the purse is one of the most effective bulwarks ever constructed
to repel a despot, control a tyrant, or shackle the hands of an overreaching
chief executive.”
Before the election Rep.
Neil Abercrombie said “If we have the majority, it’ll be
because of Iraq.” Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi reiterated that point and urged Rep. Jack Murtha be elected
majority leader because he brought the Iraq issue to the fore. The vast
majority of Democrats disagreed and elected Rep. Steny Hoyer who has
opposed Murtha on the war. Indeed, most polls and commentators cited
the Iraq war as the No. 1 issue in the elections. Will the Democrats
use “the fulcrum of the people’s leverage?”
Sadly the leadership of the
Democrats has taken the power of the purse off the table. On CNN’s
Late edition on November 12, 2006 Rep. Pelosi when asked whether “the
power of the purse to cut funding for the war in Iraq” was “on
the table” responded “Not really.” When pressed she
explained “We would not withhold our funding for the troops there.”
When Wolf Blitzer pressed further noting that without the power of the
purse all you can do is “make recommendations, but there’s
not much more.” Pelosi did not back down from her position and
instead focused on the importance of “oversight.”
Senate Majority Leader, Harry
Reid echoed this view when he
told the Washington Post on November 15 that the “Democrats
will not try to play the strongest hand they have -- using Congress's
power of the purse to starve the war effort of money and force the president
to move.”
Similarly, incoming Chair
of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin was asked “what
can you do with the new reins of power” at a press conference
on November 13, 2006 and said “we can obtain a bipartisan statement
from the Congress that the
United States has got to change course in Iraq.” But going beyond
making a statement, Sen. Levin said “I'm not prepared to go beyond
that at this point.”
Levin calls for the beginning of troop redeployment, but does not
define what that means, how many would leave Iraq and when the withdrawal
would be completed.
I guess the White House was
right, the Democrats will “Yell.”
If the Democrats used their
most precious power what could they do? Short of starving the war of
funding, they could:
- stop the funding of long-term
military bases in Iraq;
- stop the funding of the
largest embassy in the world in Baghdad;
- stop funding for expanding
the war by sending more troops to Iraq;
- stop redeployments and
stop loss orders;
- require an exit strategy
and timetable;
- stop funding covert and
overt military activity in Iran.
Or, they could support Rep.
James McGovern’s bill that seeks to prohibit funds to deploy armed
forces to Iraq but provides funds to bring them home and help rebuild
the country. He says Democrats “have various positions on the
war” and is skeptical the leadership will adopt an approach similar
to his legislation. His bill, which will be revised and resubmitted
in the new Congress, only had 18 co-sponsors.
Of course, there will be hearings on Iraq and investigations of the
administration’s conduct – that’s the razzle-dazzle
– but when it gets down to really ending the war, the only power
the Democrats have has already been taken off the table.
What kind of show can we
expect from the Democrats in Washington? A series of hearings and investigations
aimed at embarrassing President Bush and the Republicans. They can examine
the manipulation of intelligence that drew the U.S. into war, the awarding
of contracts to friends of the administration, the chain of command
that led to torture of prisoners in Iraq, and strategic and tactical
decisions that led to errors in the management of the war. All of this
will surely weaken and embarrass the Republicans.
Indeed, some
analysts have argued that keeping the president stuck with Iraq
through the remainder of his term in office, and causing the next nominee
to either agree with the president or divide the Republican Party may
be the best strategy for the Democrats in 2008.
Anti-war voters flexed their
muscle in 2006, now is the time to strengthen it further. We need to
continue to grow an anti-war electoral voting bloc (visit www.VotersForPeace.US
and sign their voters pledge and urge everyone you know to do so) and
we need to push the Democrats to use their power to represent our views.
Yes, investigations about the build-up and management of the war should
be encouraged. But, this razzle-dazzle is nowhere near enough. These
investigations need to lead to holding people accountable even if it
means impeachment.
But, more important, the
anti-war voter needs to tell Congress not to count on their support
if the war continues in 2008. We know the majority party in Congress
has the power to end the war. If they fail to do so they should be held
responsible and not retain majority power in 2008. The Democrats need
to know that it is in their political interest to end the war, not let
it drag on until the next election. We’re not going to fall for
razzle-dazzle in Washington. We want results.
Kevin Zeese is director of Democracy Rising (www.DemocracyRising.US
and a co-founder of Voters for Peace (www.VotersForPeace.US).
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights