Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, April 27, 2007
Paul  Weyrich :: Townhall.com Columnist
The House of Representatives as Commander-in-Chief?
by Paul Weyrich
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


For the first time in American history the House of Representatives has informed the military that it knows more than the Commander in Chief about conducting a war. In doing so this Congress also has notified the enemy in our ongoing war in Iraq when the enemy should expect us to begin pulling out troops and precisely how many months it will take for complete withdrawal.

If only the Congress had thought of this idea earlier - perhaps back in 1944 - we could have sent a telegram to the Germans that included the D-Day schedule. This certainly would have saved the United States Government a lot of money and saved the Nazis a lot of trouble!

The vote on the Conference Report for HR 1591, officially known as the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, was 218 -208 with only two Republicans voting with the Democratic Majority. The Report contained many non-military appropriations as well, but required all continued funding of the military be linked to specific dates for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. This is the "hammer" the legislation intended to use against the President because the Pentagon is literally out of money right now and already has used up one supplemental appropriation.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV) has changed his mind about this issue three times in the last six months. Campaigning last November, he swore not to allow cutting off funds for the military under any circumstance. Then he decided that it was okay under certain conditions. Now he is threatening to present brand new legislation which would completely end all funding for the War in Iraq.

Senator Reid also recently informed the American people (and our troops) that "Winning the war is no longer the job of the U.S. military." Under Reid's leadership, the Senate is expected to pass something similar to the Conference Report passed last night in the House, possibly as early as today, but both sides are aware that President George W. Bush has promised to veto any legislation that includes a timeline for the Iraq War as soon as the legislation gets to his desk.

General David Petraeus spent much of yesterday on Capitol Hill speaking in closed session and trying to convince Members not to vote for the bill. (Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] was unavailable to meet with the General but that should not come as a surprise.) Petraeus specifically asked that Congress wait until July to judge whether the so-called "Surge Strategy" in Iraq was working before rushing ahead with legislation that included "a date certain" for withdrawal.

Though it was only recently, in January of 2007, that Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate to command of U.S. troops in Iraq, few on the Hill seem to want to listen to his advice. Politics is more important.

An interesting feature of the Conference Report passed last evening is the items it did contain: no money for the troops without a pullout timetable but lots of earmarks. The House version of the Iraq funding bill still includes most of the "pork barrel" spending that was in place when it passed in the original form. (A conference report is the result of differences between House and Senate legislation worked out and brought back for a final vote.)

There remains $3.5 billion for agricultural disaster relief, money for the Senate gift shop, salaries for farm service workers and $650 million to bail out one State's poorly run health insurance program for children - none of which has anything to do with the military but much to do with the business of re-election.

An unfortunate precedent has been set for future administrations and future military appropriations. Unofficially, there are plans already underway for another appropriations bill in the House, where the process will have to start all over again fairly soon but it is a sad day when elected Representatives play political games with military funding and our troops must hear about it on the battlefield.

It never should have come to this point. Now that it has, let the vetoing begin.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Paul M. Weyrich is the late Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Paul Weyrich's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Libs still don't get it
Hal,

Nixon's hands were tied on Vietnam. The Democrats in Congress were reducing the funding and demanding that no civilan collateral damage occur. Nixon withdrew because he knew Congress wouldn't let him win.

The crowning irony of you balming Nixon, and not the Dems for this is that these same Dems in Congress used the Pentagon Papers as their main PR for why the President couldn't be trusted on the war. The irony of this is that the Pentagon Papers covered up the scandal of DEMOCRAT LBJ, not anything that Nixon did.

After Nixon resigned and the US withdrew it got even worse, as the Dems reneged on their promise to continue funding the army of South Vietnam. The Democrats sold both the US and South Vietnam down the river, and today try to blame the whole thing on Nixon.

BTW - The Democrats did the same thing to Reagan in Lebanon in the 1980's, and the resolution that authorized Bush41 to conduct Desert Storm against Saddam allowed him only to "reverse Iraq's occupation of Kuwait". Bush41 had no authorization to follow Saddam's troops back to Baghdad, or even to cross the border into Iraq except in self-defense.

And the correct answer to why we've been in Bosnia so long is because we've had Republicans in control of Congress all this time. A Democrat Congress would NEVER have funded an occupation initiated by a President of the other party for ten years.


dogjudge,

You asked:

"Your hope is that the Iraqi government becomes stable and is allied with the United States. Correct?"

Answer. No. Incorrect. Our hope is that Iraq will develop a self-determined government that will not provide a haven for terrorists. This has little or nothing to do with Israel, unless you are one of those who can find a problem with every solution.


And finally, BWM,

The "goals" Congress established for the President are spelled out in the resolution that specifically authorized the President to depose Saddam. The House also has funding authority, and can cut off any or all funding to the war at any time. The Congress can also put conditions on the funding, as they have in this latest supplemental funding bill, which they had to load with pork that is unrelated to the war to get passed.

And the President can veto all of it except the authority to declare war.

And the Constitution clearly and specifically establishes the President as the Commander-In-Chief. That means the Congress can choose to authorize or de-authorize the war. The congress can choose to fund or de-fund the war.

But the President will run the war.

If the Democrats are so sure they have a "mandate" for withdrawal, why are they funding the war at all?

Answer: they know even better than we do how full of it they are when they claim this mandate.

James Madison...
actually spelled out that the President is only allowed to use the military Congress created towards the goals and with the restrictions of the Congress, so this is actually the first time ever where the President has decided to remove the authority of Congress to direct the war, stating that once it starts, Congress is allowed to do nothing but watch. This is backwards, and Hitler-ish.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.