Congressional limits on war powers are hardly unprecedented

In addition to the confusion about congressional powers mentioned earlier, there seems to be a general idea that Congress simply does not interfere with presidential war authority. For lawmakers to use the power of the purse to intercede on military operations is so unusual, the theory goes, that the very idea is to be considered extreme and suspect.

The Center for American Progress explained in a thorough, well-documented report today that this notion is simply false. Congress has repeatedly exercised its constitutionally authorized powers. Think Progress noted a sampling of the many recent examples.

December 1970. P.L. 91-652 — Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces.

December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.

June 1983. P.L. 98-43 — The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. The Congress required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon.

June 1984. P.L. 98-525 — The Defense Authorization Act. The Congress capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400.

November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization.

Indeed, it’s worth noting that Republicans, when Clinton was president, used this power rather routinely.

From the CAP report:

* In 1994, Senator Jesse Helms tried unsuccessfully to prohibit funding for any U.S. military operations in Haiti and the House attempted to cut $1.2 billion in peacekeeping and humanitarian funds for Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, and Iraq.

* In 1995, Sen. Gregg (R-NH) sought to cap the allowable number of combat troops deployed to Bosnia at 25,000 and House members sought unsuccessfully to prohibit any federal funds from being used for deployment in any peacekeeping operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

* Similarly in 1998, Senators Warner and Byrd sought to cut off funding for the Kosovo deployment unless the president sought and received explicit congressional authorization and developed a plan to turn the peacekeeping duties over to U.S. allies by July 1, 2001.

* Sens. Warner and Byrd also sought to withhold a quarter of FY 2000 supplemental appropriations for operations in Kosovo until the president certified that NATO allies were fulfilling their requirements.

* In 1999, in the House, Rep. Souder sought to prohibit funding for military operations in Yugoslavia.

Congress doesn’t just have an opportunity; they have a responsibility to shape national security policy. Lawmakers always have. The sooner we stop hearing about how “extreme” this is, the better.

As I said previously, please PLEASE vote to cut funding while our brave men and women are under fire. Please.

  • We will see in short order how our newly elected Congressional members respond to this recent Executive ascendancy. Will the Democratic Congress show its spine? I’m sure some of my Republican brethern would like it if I chopped the “ic” from Democratic, but I for one do not ascribe to such foolduggery. -Kevo

  • Am I missing something here, or doesn’t the President have to sign these things for them to carry any weight? And if it’s just a resolution, what authority does it have?

    By the way, Thomas, you really are a fool.

  • beep52:

    I am a “fool” for wanting YOUR guys to actually pull the trigger on their base’s wet dream?

  • As I said previously, please PLEASE vote to cut funding while our brave men and women are under fire. Please.

    What the hell is the matter with you Thomas?! You to cut funding to troops in a war zone because you think it will ‘zing’ the Democrats? You’re playing politics with their lives? How patriotic of you. How honorable.

    How do you answer for the fact that your president sent them there on false premises, ill-equipped and undermanned? How do you answer for your president, who lied the nation an unnecessary war- with the rubber-stamp 109th congress providing NO oversite and allowing the loss or theft of billions, borrowed from Communist China?

    How do answer for the fact your president has sent 3000 brave Americans to die occupying a country that did nothing to us an posed no threat?

    This is how you answer: You dare your political opposition to cut funding to the troops stuck in hell for no good reason.

    Decent, patriotic Americans listen to your shit-eating rhetoric and PUKE!

    To quote a great war movie: “WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION, NUMBNUTS?!!”

  • Sorry, regular readers, please ignore my rant, I just had a question for our wannabe law student Thomass.

    Thomass, in the interest of knowing why this site is now privileged enough to have its own barnacle faced troll, what are you doing here? You are not going to persuade anyone here with your points of view. The simple fact is that people like you perpetrated a fraud on America by putting an incompetent in the White House. You should be hanging your head in shame or slinking away with your tail between your legs for what your stupidity has done to this once great nation. If you weren’t able to hide and remain anonymous behind your computer, I am sure no one would hear a whisper out of your foul smelling mouth. Maybe you are of the opinion stupidity should have a public voice too and I commend you for standing up and suggesting the absurd when we need a laugh, but now the adults want to talk. You should go to a website were you would be appreciated. Here you will just be a tempting easy target. You compared yourself to Douchewitz before so I have an idea what your agenda is. By the way, your remark on the other link
    ———————————————————
    “That’s right, recall Lieberman and defund the war — I dare you.

    Comment by Thomass (Wikipedophile) — 1/8/2007 @ 4:50 pm
    ———————————————————
    Sort of the equivalent of “bring em on”, a statement by another deep thinker with an IQ of 81. I can see why you look up to him. Try not to get your knees dirty if you ever do look up at him and don’t get any on your dress.

    Now I feel better. Trolls are good for something after all.

  • #1- Thomas – so how’s it going? Getting all excited about your Leader’s Great Address tomorrow night? Just like you did in all His previous major addresses? Having a wet dream about watching more troops march into peril? Doesn’t Bush look manly to you when he announces he is going to “surge” with other people’s lives?

    You must be very lonely, my friend.

  • So Thomas wants to see funding cuts for our troops? Sounds like he’s eager for our military to suffer, in exchange for some sort of political gain. Way to support the troops Thomo!
    Try to get you mind around this concept, Thomas: There is no chance in hell the Dems are going to cut funding for troops already deployed. I know that disappoints you. OTOH there’s a good chance that no funding will be made available for additional deployments. I don’t know if you can get the same joy from that, but it’s the best you’re likely to get.

  • beep52:

    You’ll have to “show your work” for me to understand that conclusion.

    Haik Bedrosian (and JoeW):

    I am not the one who wants to cut funding to troops in a war zone — those of you in the rabid Democratic base do. As for you other questions, I do not believe my president lied or sent them there on false premises, ill-equipped and undermanned? I obviously think Saddam’s Iraq posed a threat to America.

    tko (hardly):

    I am simply posting the truth whether that persuades anyone here or not. I am also glad you got that all off your chest though. Maybe now you can discuss the issues in a civil manner?

    Ohioian:

    I am not lonely, but I do look forward to every Presidential Address whether Republican or Democratic. You know: “Reality-Based Commentary, Analysis, and Tirades on Politics in America”. Call me a political scientist if you must.

  • Because I’ve posted that. Sheesh! I would have thought that at least was obvious, but I guess I can’t over-estimate you guys.

  • Geez Thomo, when this

    As I said previously, please PLEASE vote to cut funding while our brave men and women are under fire. Please.

    somehow means this

    I am not the one who wants to cut funding to troops in a war zone

    your support for boygeorgethedeciderer starts to make a little sense. Is everything backwards in your alternate universe?

  • Thomass, I seem to recall your delusional ass calling posters here idiots, now you want to be civil. Fuck you and tko are my initials so fuck you again. Is that civil enough?

  • Par for the course, tko.

    P.S. to JoeW — I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain the difference between a “dare” and “intent” to you. Maybe one of your Bush hater friends can help.

  • I do not believe my president lied or sent them there on false premises, ill-equipped and undermanned? I obviously think Saddam’s Iraq posed a threat to America.

    Wow, I honestly did not know that someone could say that many stupid (perhaps just ignorant if I’m feeling gracious?) things in that amount of words. I’m going to get Guiness on the phone and we’ll try to get you the credit you deserve. Truly unprecedented.

    Seriously, what color is the sky in your world? The lies are bordering on uncountable, the false premises keeps getting added to, the troops were not properly equipped and every account by every general was that the troop numbers were woefully inadequate; check out General Petraeus’ ideas about this ‘surge.’ And you think that Saddam posed a threat to America? Even David Kay came back and said just how wrong he had been and begged off the team so that he wouldn’t have to embarass himself with the actual findings regarding WMDs.

    Thomas, I can only surmise that your brain functions. It is okay to admit that you were wrong about Bush, about the war in Iraq. It’s ok to say that those scumbags lied to you for their own gain (power, money, oil). You don’t have to blindly follow some authoritarian leader who has brought nothing but blight on this country. Stand up for something good, stand up for what is right. Open your eyes and don’t just blindly tap away at the keyboard spitting out drivel. This isn’t a game (re: your comments oh PLEASE let them cut the funding). There are lives at stake here not to mention the 3,000 American lives that have been needlessly wasted as well as the untold thousands of Iraqis that have died as well.

    Please, just use your brain.

  • Bush cut funding for the military when he cut taxes on his rich friends, forcing this nation to borrow money from our communist Chinese friends who are bankrolling this war. We get to pay for China’s own military expansion through the debt service paid for on this borrowed money. If we ever face the Chinese on the field of battle, like say over an invasion of Taiwan, I’d hate to see how our worn out hummers face up against their shiny new armored vehicles.

    Bush hamstrung the military by falling for Rummy’s idea of of a smaller, higher-tech military. That’s great for a blitzkrieg-type war of pushing back boundaries of land possession, but as we are seeing now, try holding, pacifying and nation building with too few boots on the ground.

    Forcing the military to bring home exhausted troops by not financing their further exploitation in a politically failed war is THE most patriotic thing to do. F*&king over the troops by constantly extending their rotations and stop-lossing soldiers that have fulfilled their commitment and instead should be back home and safely with their families is as unpatriotic as I can imagine.

  • Homer:

    To answer your questions: Blue and yes (not necessarily in that order).

    petorado:

    Have YOU ever served in the military? You probably think failing to raise the minimum wage is a “cut” too, right? And here I thought that I was the only one not being “reality-based”!

  • “Call me a political scientist if you must.”

    More likely in the employ of the RNC or some other right-wing based organization and paid to disrupt liberal or progressive blogs.

  • Wait a minute Thomas #13, You think Saddam’s Iraq posed a threat to America because you have “posted that?”

    Am I missing something? You posted what?

    Explain to me how Saddam’s Iraq, having been totally defanged by the ’91 war, having been in a strategic geo-political box ever since, periodically bombed by US & UK planes, with the Kurdish North a defacto independent state, having been brought to its knees with a decade of sanctions- with no ties to Bin Laden, with no proof of WMD- how this posed more of a threat, than what Bush has created today? Please explain again.

    HOW can you think that? I DON’T get it. Do or your parents work for a defense contractor? This war is DESTROYING the security of the United States, NOT protecting it! ANSWER for IT!!

    And while you’re at it, Thomas, answer for THIS!

  • 2Manchu:

    John Murtha, for one (most others are careful about just hinting at that so as to get rabid Democratic base votes). Did you see Ted Kennedy’s speech today? The Commander-in-Chief could order 20,000 troops into Iraq tomorrow, and then I would add Kennedy to that list.

  • Haik:

    Explain to me how Saddam’s Iraq, having been totally defanged by the ‘91 war, having been in a strategic geo-political box ever since, periodically bombed by US & UK planes, with the Kurdish North a defacto independent state, having been brought to its knees with a decade of sanctions- with no ties to Bin Laden, with no proof of WMD- how this posed more of a threat, than what Bush has created today?

    Oh, I thought you were asking “why” it is obvious that I think that. I believe you are assuming too much about no proof of WMD and no ties to bin Laden.

  • Thomas, resident Wikipedophile, what is your opinion on bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities?

  • Your mind is closed Thomas. I honestly feel sorry for you having to go through life like that.

  • I believe you are assuming too much about no proof of WMD and no ties to bin Laden.

    Comment by Thomas — 1/9/2007 @ 3:39 pm

    —————————–

    Thomass, are you telling us Hussein was connected to Bin Laden?

  • Homer:

    I answered every one of your questions. I am honestly willing to listen to your perspective and change my mind if you convince me. If you have any more questions, let me know.

    tko:

    Saddam had more ties to Osama than you do to Kevin Bacon. As for Israel or the U.S. protecting itself against Iran, NO MILITARY OPTION should be off the table.

  • Sorry Thomas, it’s not about answering my (rhetorical) questions. I do not believe my president lied or sent them there on false premises, ill-equipped and undermanned? I obviously think Saddam’s Iraq posed a threat to America. You put these statements out there and each of them is verifiably false. Do some research. Don’t just spout out comments that you’ve read elsewhere. I know it’s hard to admit but, trust me, you’ll feel better when you do.

  • Why, I’m truly disappointed by all these mesages !
    How come you spend so much time arguing with a troll ?
    What for ?

    Can’t you just ignore him ? Don’t you think this blog deserves better than that ?

  • Thomass, here are some facts about Israel,

    “A top IDF judge disclosed on Tuesday that 2,700 Palestinians have been detained without trial this year, criticizing the military prosecution for not filing charges against some of them.”

    Israeli security forces killed 660 Palestinians in 2006 according to Israeli rights group (141 children, 322 that had no part in hostile acts)

    UN Human Rights council criticizes Israel for seventh time

    Some ally, they treat people as badly as some of the evil dictators we have dealt with. Face it, Lieberman wannabe, I mean Thomass, Israel doesn’t want peace because to achieve peace, Israel would have to give the Golan Heights back to Syria. The Golan Heights is the biggest of Israel’s 3 water sources. Besides, if Israel doesn’t hurry and bomb Iran, Ahmadinejad’s political allies are doing so poorly, Ahmadinejad may not be there for you guys to use as an excuse.

  • To the regular readers, I apologize for hijacking the thread. To Thomass, just go away, we know why you are here now.

  • Thomass, for the record, I hope the Kassam rockets do stop, you shouldn’t have to live that way.

  • I’m not going away. I will always be happy to discuss why Congress should not be allowed to interfere with presidential war powers. Maybe if Steve starts a thread about Israel nuking Iran, we can discuss your “facts” over there.

  • I’m afraid that, under the tender ministrations of nincompoops such as Thomas and others, The Carpetbagger Report may become typical of other political blogs, blogs which I no longer look at: A lot of time slogging through Thomas-generated shit in order to find what used to be gems of reason and writing in response to CB’s proffered topics.

    Thomas has nothing constructive to offer. “Is too, is not” is sandbox, not discussion. Ignore him or prevent him. I don’t care which.

  • Ed @39 – Thomas has nothing constructive to offer. “Is too, is not” is sandbox, not discussion.

    Ed, I have to agree with you. Although contrary to some, I do not mind engaging in discussion with some who might otherwise be known as trolls. I believe that reasoned discourse is beneficial to all and have known many GOP friends who will actually engage in a discussion of issues (oddly, most if not all, despise Bush). I had hoped Thomas would be willing to do so, but alas, he is just sandbox like you say. I can admit when I was wrong as I was to try to engage Thomas.

    However, when the next troll comes along, I may seek to engage him as well. If he can back up his opinions, I think we all benefit. If he can’t or just acts like Thomas has here, I will refrain.

  • The American Progess list is BOGUS. Let’s just look at the Vietnam war ones, which are pertinent:

    “December 1970. P.L. 91-652 — Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces.”

    WHAT IT DID NOT DO IS CUT OFF THE MAKING OF WAR ON CAMBODIA OR LAOS, or indeed, on Vietnam.

    US regular troops were already out of Cambodia by the time the amendment took effect.

    Wikipedia: “A revised Cooper-Church amendment, Public Law 91-652, passed both houses of Congress on December 22, 1970, and was enacted on January 5, 1971, though this version had limited restrictions on air operations “…“U.S. bombing runs in Cambodia continued until 1973.” — wikipedia

    • In 1971 Cambodian bombing missions made up nearly 15 percent of the total number of combat sorties flown in Southeast Asia, up from eight percent in 1970.

    • In 1971, US air power supported an invasion of Laos by ARVN.

    • Operation Linebacker: “18 December to 29 December 1972 (hence its unofficial nickname – the “Christmas Bombings”) saw the largest heavy bomber strikes launched by the U.S. Air Force since the end of the Second World War.

    “15,237 tons of ordnance were dropped on 18 industrial and 14 military targets (including eight SAM sites) while fighter-bombers added another 5,000 tons of bombs to the tally….Damage to the DRV’s infrastructure was severe. The Air Force estimated 500 rail interdictions had taken place, 372 pieces of rollng stock and three million gallons of petroleum products were destroyed, and 80 percent of the DRV’s electrical power production capability had been eliminated.” — wikipedia

    So this latter day restriction by Congress had very little effect on the war.

    December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.

    BY WHICH TIME NIXON HAD ALREADY RESIGNED AND BEEN PARDONED BY FORD for all crimes against the US.


    Further, the list fails to include any context, which time and again tells the real story:

    “November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994,”

    Blackhawk Down, in October 1993, was the context.

    In no case has the Congress actually defunded a war, or shown it can.

    In the above cases, the SE Asia actions were weak, untested in the courts, and meaningless in the overall context — most especially, with reference to the current case, ON THE GROUND, where “the areas around the Mekong River were so full of bomb craters from B-52 strikes that, by 1973, they looked like the valleys of the moon.”

    There is no point in kidding ourselves.

  • Paul in LA – I think the conclusion to draw from this is that the legislation mentioned in those 1970’s situations was late, insufficiently restrictive, poorly drawn, or otherwise ineffectual. That’s a far cry, however, from an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s Executive privilege.

  • Homer, I don’t consider there TO BE an Executive war power, under the Constitution. But I recognize that this battle to assign the war powers to a Congress, instead of a Prince, is one we have engaged in for hundreds of years, including by the American Revolution. That battle is far from over.

    It’s a canard to claim that Congress has ‘done it before.’ Congress’ weakness in resisting the Executive (when the courts and the media are complicit) is only all too clear. My point is not that it is improper — far from it. We need more such actions.

    But it is delusional for people to take these facts without the context, and pretend to some sort of legislative righteousness — as if the battle were already over, and all we have to do is wave the Constitution, and the tyrants will fold their tents.

    Congress MAY be able to slow Bushco’s actual plans — they have shown no ability to do so yet. In reality, it is quite clear that Congress will again fail to punish the Executive, through lack of political will, abetted by a complicit media and a lazy political culture.

    There is the chance this time of getting some indictments, and that I support 100%. Funding cuts are a cover for the REAL war plan, which as Senator Kerry courageously said in the first debate of 2004, is to fulfill the PNAC, and install permanent airbases in FORMER-Iraq. What he didn’t say was that Bushco has fomented a civil war for that purpose — a war crime that is a form of genocide, or that draining the treasury OF BOTH COUNTRIES into private hands is also Job #1.

  • This Congress was voted into office to stop further stupidity by our President. Even in the instance of no historical precedents, it would be an admission of failure for Congress to make no attempt to stop an escalation of the Iraq war. A benign acceptance of escalation will be used against them in 2008 just as the vote for AMUF was twisted into wanting the whole current mess in 2004.

    There is evidence that all the President is engaged in is a bloody delaying action to make this “someone else’s problem”. Sources in the executive branch have admitted that this is purely a political maneuver. This is surely not the basis for sound foreign policy and certainly America is owed a detailed explanation as to where, what, and why. This is Congress’s job. If Congress makes any attempt at further legal restraints, this also is what the public is demanding, and it will be up to the Courts to decide what is legal and what is not.

    The one sure way to fail is to do nothing and continue to let the President make bad decision after bad decision.

  • Paul, well said. I agree there is no “war power” per se under the Constitution although the Prez is the C-in-C, etc., and we start to get into really excruciating issues regarding the fact that no war was ever declared here (there, or anywhere since, what, 1941?).

    But your point that all we have to do is wave the Constitution and the tyrants will fold their tents is well taken. Nothing we have seen thus far has indicated that they have anything but contempt for the Constitution other than to use it to satisfy their politically expedient motives (e.g., primarily to justify expanding the executive’s powers).

    Congress has not shown any willingness to provide any oversight, although the eternal optimist in me hopes against hope that your are wrong that the combination of lack of political will, a complicit media and a lazy political culture will continue this trend.

    The one thing where I must disagree with you is that me, you, Kerry or anyone reading this have any semblance of an idea of what their ultimate intentions are with Iraq. The combination of political knowledge/know-how, vast sums of money (huge tracts of land?), unchecked power and lust for power and, what I would call, pure evil intent (defined as a malevolence towards others so as to benefit yourself) have led these people into places with which I am unfamiliar. I’m sure airbases and oil fields are part of it, but (and I’m no conspiracy theorist generally although that may be changing) I have no doubt that they have more nefarious plans in store for us.

  • “This Congress was voted into office to stop further stupidity by our President.”

    That is certainly a debatable claim. This Congress was voted into office because for the first time since 1999, we had a big enough landslide to break the VOTE-FRAUD.

    “Even in the instance of no historical precedents, it would be an admission of failure for Congress to make no attempt to stop an escalation of the Iraq war.”

    The ‘bump’ of some tens of thousands of troops has ZERO to do with ‘an escalation.’ The purpose of the illegal invasion of Iraq REMAINS UNTOUCHED by it either way.

    • Install permanent airbases.
    • Foment civil war to be able to keep them there, in former-Iraq.

    “There IS NO MORE IRAQ. There will be three territories.” — Kissinger, early 2004, briefing his Saudi clients

    Jerry Bremer, former president of Kissinger Associates, first act four days after arriving in Baghdad:

    CPA Order #1: Immediate deBaathification.
    CPA Order #2: Immediate dissolution of Iraq army, air force, navy, secret police, intelligence services, Republican Guard, Baath party milita, and Ministry of Defense.

    Both actions were a total shock to our military, which accepted shockingly small deployments in exchange for the expected ability to use Iraqi troops to stabilize the country.

    “A benign acceptance of escalation”

    You may not even know what that is, if you think these troops are that. Escalation is the upcoming WAR with Iran — which is already underway, though overt attacks are maybe two months off.

    “There is evidence that all the President is engaged in is a bloody delaying action to make this “someone else’s problem”.”

    This is a myth. Bush has ZERO intention of ever leaving former-Iraq. He is not delaying to drop it in someone else’s lap. That’s a myth for children.

    “Sources in the executive branch have admitted that this is purely a political maneuver.”

    Souces in the executive branch have been lying like true masters.

    “This is surely not the basis for sound foreign policy and certainly America is owed a detailed explanation as to where, what, and why.” — Glen

    Great, Glen — when we get a legal executive, I’m sure they will rush right out and explain such things. The current executive has committed major acts of treason, warcrimes, and a general Conspiracy to defraud the United States — which shoots your ‘owed’ platitude right out the window.

    My point is that pretending that a troop increase is escalation is a CANARD. The entire policy is an act of criminality, and the true policy is going forward swimmingly, while moderate voices like yours fool yourselves in order to stay calm.

  • Congress has not shown any willingness to provide any oversight,” –Homer

    That’s also a canard, Homer.

    The 109th Congress was run by a complicit partisan majority which broke the rules, refused to do its work, refused to ALLOW oversight, and damaged the country in every way they could conspire to.

    Dems in that Congress had little chance to show their willingness, and now certainly we will get exposure of Bushco crimes galore.

    What we need is to pressure the corporate media to cover the results of that exposure, and for THE REPUBLICANS to call for an impeachment of their executive.

  • “The one thing where I must disagree with you is that me, you, Kerry or anyone reading this have any semblance of an idea of what their ultimate intentions are with Iraq.”

    That’s paranoid, and paranoia may be warranted, but the PNAC and the plan in Iraq are not hard to understand. Dismantle the country by fomenting civil war, establlish major permanent airbases, attack/destabilize “(Iraq), Syria, (Lebanon), Yemen, Iran, Sudan, & Somalia” (PNAC), install Cheney’s Pipelinestan project with oil/gas ports in Arabian Sea (Pakistan),

    and, upcoming, attack Iran, eventually with nuclear weapons.

    The idea that this is vague or harbors some more hidden strategy is clearly wrong. One reason why is that these bastards DELIGHT in exposing their plans and actions while denying them, in order to revel in their impunity.

    Abu Ghraib is an excellent example of INTENTIONAL exposure, followed by denial and further exposure. Passing out the war and torture porn, the whole while.

  • Paul, you say the 109th Congress refused to “allow” oversight and I say they refused to “provide” oversight. Since it was their job to provide oversight and they didn’t do it, I think I’m more technically accurate but in any event, I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make by making the distinction other than to say that they either acted illegally or allowed illegal acts to take place on their watch, in which case I agree with you.

    I do hope that you’re right @47 that we will get exposure of the Bush Crime Family’s crimes galore, but I continue to question the political will of the Dems. But why are you contradicting yourself since you said @43 In reality, it is quite clear that Congress will again fail to punish the Executive, through lack of political will, abetted by a complicit media and a lazy political culture. Or is your point that they will expose the crimes and not punish. The crimes have been exposed informally, to be sure, but if they have the cajones to expose such crimes with any degree of certainty in hearings, the public may compel them to punish.

    As for Republicans calling for the impeachment of Herr Bush, I will not hold my breath.

    You seem to have very strong views as to the reasons behind all of these machinations, and you may be right on some, many or all of your points. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t other justifications/motives for their actions. By saying there isn’t some other strategy in place for which they haven’t shown their cards I think unnecessarily blinds you/us to other possibilities. I like the idea of trying to figure out their intentions based on PNAC, etc., but I don’t want to limit myself (at least not yet) in my estimation of their capacity for greed, lust for power and pure evilness.

  • Paul in LA, Homer, Glen – Thanks for the cogent debate that makes this a fun site to come to. It’s a welcome respite from our recent outbreak of trolls.

    I learned a lot from you all, but I respectfully disagree with a point of Paul’s: I don’t think that civil war is beneficial to BushCo’s plans. The greater the unrest, the more imperiled the production and transit of oil. Oil is the one thing that crosses all borders of Kurd, Shia and Sunni sectors. It’s bad business to have armed conflict and sabotage of production facilites and pipelines. The civil unrest is, in my estimation, a consequence of the invasion that the PNAC folks had swept under the rug as a non-issue. As far as I know, the civil war doesn’t seem to be helping Bush’s plans, whatever his ulterior motives truly are.

  • Petorado – right back at ya, and good point as well about the “downside” of civil war (holy war?).

  • “Paul, you say the 109th Congress refused to “allow” oversight and I say they refused to “provide” oversight.”

    Sorry, I wasn’t clear. The canard is to refer to ‘Congress,’ when in fact the 109th was not a functional Congress, because the Rapepublicans were in charge and they passed out death threats and disdain with a callousness that blocks any serious attempt at democracy.

    (Duke Cunningham, floor of the House, to Congressman resisting being coerced to vote: “Your son is toast.”)

    “I do hope that you’re right @47 that we will get exposure of the Bush Crime Family’s crimes galore, but I continue to question the political will of the Dems.”

    The only flaw in that is that too often people question the political will, without questioning or understanding the political LIMITS. Nine-eleven, for instance, is not the kind of thing that ‘political will’ can survive — especially when the media is complicit and muffles dem voices.

    “Or is your point that they will expose the crimes and not punish.”

    I believe that what happened to Nixon is likely — eventual resignation, followed by some sort of disregard of OUR rights to justice. I believe we have this year to remove these bastards from office by both the scandal of their crimes, and the political equations on the Republican side.

    “The public may compel them to punish.” — Homer

    Yes. And for that to happen, the corporate media has to be induced, by whatever legal means we can muster, to EXPOSE what is exposed, and not cover it back up or muffle it entirely. So our tasks, as I see it, are dual: expose, and educate. I think that’s pretty close to the Dem strategy in the Congress, but of course the leadership cannot herd the cats to any reliable degree (though Pelosi is Speaker as a direct result of her abilities, which were and are rather awesome to watch, even if holding the caucus together didn’t solve the Bushco crisis, other than denying them their expectation that the party would collapse. Guess again, you thugs!).

  • “I don’t think that civil war is beneficial to BushCo’s plans.”

    They pulled out all the stops to produce that result. The evidence of their complicity in this warcrime (& genocide) is overwhelming.

    “The greater the unrest, the more imperiled the production and transit of oil.”

    They are after a GENERATIONAL shift in the oil-power of the Middle East. They are in there for all the marbles. Iraq’s oil will eventually be available again — and ‘Iraq,’ so the plan goes, will not be in the way.

    “Oil is the one thing that crosses all borders of Kurd, Shia and Sunni sectors.” –petorado

    My eyes were opened by reading Galbraith’s “The End of Iraq.” Prior to reading that, I had failed to understand that the Kurds LEFT Iraq back in the 1980s, and the country — as a result of Bushco-Hussein activities, has indeed been reduced to a temporary union of interests, mostly held together with coercion. The Kurds left after the Anfal; the Marsh Arab Shi’ites who were handed a genocide of their culture by Bush sr. are also no longer ‘Iraqi’ except as a convenience of reference.

    WE underestimate the effect of those genocides. They do not, and the differences are primarily NOT those of religion or culture per se.

    “The civil unrest is, in my estimation, a consequence of the invasion”

    To a great degree. Could Iraq have transitioned from Ba’athist rule without a civil war? Probably not. Is there a common will for a united Iraq? There hasn’t been for twenty years.

    What Bush did, invading to install airbases, is an act of naked aggression, covered by lies. Fomenting civil war once there is a crime against humanity.

    “As far as I know, the civil war doesn’t seem to be helping Bush’s plans”

    That’s where a great number of people are wrong. The civil war is exactly what they planned, and while it isn’t working as well as they hoped, it is going forward wonderfully.

    The people will be divided into three territories by a great weight of hatred poured out by the PLANNED failure of the illegal Iraq invasion, and by the previous Bushco-Hussein activities. And then — mirabile dictu — we will find that we have permanent airbases there that have to stay — for ‘stability’ if nothing else. ‘They need us.’

  • Tagging on here: I share petorado’s appreciation of the foregoing cogent debate. I especially welcomed Homer’s attempt to identify “.. any semblance of an idea of what their ultimate intentions are with Iraq ..” — something I’ve always had the wish, but never the wit or courage, to penetrate, and certainly not to fumble towards in public. These contributions above significantly deepen my understanding, and lead to my thinking an unspeakable, on the issue of civil war.

    Persuaded by Homer’s identification of “pure evil intent”, I could conceive of bracketing into that category a specifically, intentionally provoked internecine conflict leading to an implosive, mutually annihilating civil war. In the short-term, of course, it is messy and inconvenient; but in the long term it is just what a doctor-of-evil would order.

    The unthinkable has been thought. The unspeakable has been spoken. Sad.

  • Comments are closed.