Why are Democrats looking for a scapegoat to prevent the escalation of the conflict in Iraq?
Over the past several months, since the seating of the victorious Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, members of Congress have proposed bills to prevent, limit, or otherwise oppose the president's proposed escalation of troops in Iraq. Many members of Congress have also proposed bills to set a specified withdrawal date.
But some Democrats, rather than using their recaptured congressional mandate combined with the popular anti-war mandate of the November elections to oppose the Iraq War, instead are looking for scapegoats to explain away why they cannot restrict the president's operations in Iraq, and they have "found" an unlikely one: the Constitution.
Many Democrats, notably presidential contender Joseph Biden (D-DE), have stated that they believe the Constitution prevents Congress from micromanaging war, or otherwise infringing on the Commander-in-Chief's war powers once they have been granted.
Such a view is utterly ludicrous and unsubstantiated by the text of the Constitution, the views of the Founding Fathers and the history of law in this nation.
Senator Biden, in a Jan. 7 "Meet the Press", expressed hesitation about cutting off funds for our forces in Iraq. However, he expressed no such reservation when he voted in favor of the Case-Church Amendment, which prohibited further U.S. action in South Vietnam, in 1973.
The question one must ask when observing such a stunning contradiction is why Democrats in Congress have decided to find an argument against their own professed opposition to the war in Iraq.
Is it because Democrats actually think the Constitution prevents them from stopping the war? It can't be. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and it gives Congress the power to appropriate funds. The Founding Fathers feared a tyrannical executive in control of the military and specifically put in these protections to prevent the Commander-in-Chief from bringing the nation into a war Congress opposed.
Some Democrats have said that the Constitution prohibits Congress from infringing on the President's ability to wage war once granted. Even if that were a correct interpretation of the Constitution, and I do not believe it is, Congress can choose to fund, or not fund, virtually anything it wants having to do with the military, with whatever conditions it wants. The Executive has no inherent right to use the military how it wishes. In fact, for many years of this country's existence, there was no military as we understand the term. We had no standing army.
Congress can choose to fund an army; it can choose not to fund an army. It can choose to fund an army that only goes certain places, or it can choose to fund an army that can go anywhere. It can fund an army of 150,000 troops, or 150,001 troops, or any number it wants. If the President finds the decision of Congress, expressed through law, unwise, s/he can veto the Bill. The Constitution offers the President no greater power.
History is replete with examples of Congress only authorizing funds for certain military actions. From the dawn of our nation's history, such as the so-called Quasi-War with France to more recently in Vietnam, Congress has appropriated funds for our armed forces with specific conditions, such as in what geographic areas the funds can be used to support our forces. Indeed, Congress has enacted and the president has signed numerous treaties and bills that prevent him from engaging in certain tactics during war. We have signed treaties and passed laws prohibiting chemical and biological weapons, torture, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. All of these laws impose conditions on the conduct of our armed forces. Certainly, the use of biological weapons is a tactic, as is torturing and murdering civilians. But our Congress, in its wisdom, and our Presidents have signed into laws and ratified treaties that prevent some tactics from being utilized by our Commander-in-Chief. At that time, no one seemed to speak up, saying that Congress was somehow encroaching on some sort of carte blanche for the president to run any war he wants, any time, any way.
Since congressional Democrats can't actually think the Constitution prevents them from stopping the war, as it didn't stop Congressmen such as Senators Kennedy or Biden in 1973, why are they using the Constitution as a scapegoat? Well, for some Democratic politicians, the answer seems clear: they don't actually oppose the war.
Senator Clinton, when asked if she could say without equivocating that the war was a mistake, responded, "knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it." The implication is that Senator Clinton, knowing what she knew then, would have voted for it, and indeed, she did. Why Senator Clinton could not oppose a war in 2003 that millions of Americans opposed is beyond me, but she has her position, and she's holding it, even if she is trying to have it both ways.
But what Hillary Clinton's position suggests is that some Democrats, like Joseph Biden, don't oppose the proposals against de-escalation because they think that they are unconstitutional, but that they oppose these proposals because they don't agree with them. Some Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, like to pretend they would have voted differently, when in reality they would do the same thing again. Others who, like Biden, have neither Clinton's adroitness nor the courage to state their actual views, try to find a scapegoat. Biden's is the Constitution.
