Republicans block Iraq debate

Republicans block Iraq debate
By Caroline Daniel in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: February 5 2007 17:50 | Last updated: February 6 2007 08:11


Republicans on Monday blocked debate on a bipartisan resolution expressing opposition to President George W. Bush's troop "surge" in Iraq.

In the most significant sign of Congress reasserting itself against a powerful executive since the start of the war, Democrats and a handful of key Republicans in the Senate have been pushing a symbolic vote aimed at pressing Mr Bush to change course.

However, supporters of the resolution received only 49 votes towards the 60 necessary to override opposition from the Republican leadership, which wants to force the Democrats to vote on a competing resolution that says Congress should not block funding for the additional 21,500 troops being sent to Iraq.

Even the prospect of the debate had stirred bitter exchanges, Senator John McCain accusing supporters of a resolution opposing the surge as "intellectually dishonest".

John Edwards, a Democratic presidential hopeful, said Congress would be guilty of "betrayal" if it did not exercise its constitutional powers to stop the war. Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic senator, charged Republicans with "obstructionism" amid weekend manoeuvres by Bush supporters to avert a vote.

The central resolution - a bipartisan text that would express disapproval of the surge - was non-binding. That prompted some to dismiss it as inconsequential but for others it would have been the first symbolic no-confidence vote in the president's handling of the Iraq war.

"For the majority of Congress to resolve [that] the president is not doing the right thing is not a trivial matter in a time of war, even if it does not have a legal effect," said Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

Congressional concern has prompted a White House compromise over its terrorist surveillance programme. But, in challenging the conduct of the war and the commander-in-chief's power, the debate goes to the heart of the administration's philosophical view of its authority. Mr Bush and Dick Cheney, the vice-president, have reacted to the congressional challenge with characteristic bluntness. Mr Cheney said a resolution was "not going to stop us". Mr Bush has used plainer language, arguing that he is the "decider", and invoking his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief.

Senator Arlen Specter, former Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, last week took him on, noting Mr Bush "is not the sole decider, that the decider is a shared and joint responsibility".

His comments came during a hearing on "exercising Congress's constitutional right to end a war", initiated by Senator Russell Feingold, a Democrat and one of the war's most assertive critics.

He introduced legislation to prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of forces in Iraq six months after the bill is enacted. "If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will."

Compared with previous occasions when Congress has asserted itself at a time of war, such as Vietnam, the political will is limited.

"The non-binding resolution seems palsied by comparison. It does not prevent the president doing anything. It is just optics and play-acting," said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official.

The most meaningful Congressional power in a time of war is the power of the purse. In 1970, Congress set a date to cut off funds to prevent troops entering Cambodia. In 1973 it passed amendments cutting off funds, after August 15, to finance combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

In 1987 Congress cut off military assistance to the Nicaraguan Contras, and in 1988 passed legislation to restrict funding for Bosnia unless the president agreed to certain assurances.

"There are two reasons Congress is weaker now," says Mr Fein. "There is still a post-9/11 fear factor. And they fear that if funds are not forthcoming in Iraq and it gets worse and the whole thing erupts, they will get blamed for it. What is worrisome is that Congress as an institution is becoming effete in challenging the president."

Additional reporting by Demetri Sevastopulo