War debate goes to heart of Bush’s power

War debate goes to heart of Bush’s power
By Caroline Daniel in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: February 5 2007 17:50 | Last updated: February 5 2007 17:50



The Senate moved on Monday towards a historic debate on resolutions opposing President George W. Bush’s troop “surge” in Iraq, the most significant sign of Congress reasserting itself against a powerful executive since the start of the war.

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 on the issues.

The central resolution – a bipartisan text that would express disapproval of the surge – is non-binding. That has prompted some to dismiss it as inconsequential but for others it would be 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,” says Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

The debate forms part of an intensifying battle over Mr Bush’s exercise of executive power. Congressional concern has prompted a White House compromise over its terrorist surveillance programme. But when it comes to the conduct of the war and a more direct challenge to the commander-in-chief’s power, this 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. Last week, Senator Arlen Specter, the former Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, took him on, noting Mr Bush “is not the sole decider, that the decider is a shared and joint responsibility”. He said Mr Bush’s expansion of power created “an atmosphere of confrontation”.

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 most assertive critics of the war. Last week 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 – and constitutionally clear – power that Congress has in a time of war is the direct power of the purse. In 1970, Congress set a date to cut off funds to prevent combat troops entering Cambodia. In 1973 it passed amendments stating that after August 15, 1973, no funds could be used 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.”

Yet, as the death toll mounts in Iraq and the proposed budget for the war rises, dissent is building. Amid concern about wh- ether the Senate would even get to a vote on a non-binding resolution, Ms Feinstein this weekend threatened: “If we can’t get this done, you can be sure a month or so down the pike, there’s going to be stronger legislation.”