House GOP wants to prohibit Iraq funding cut-off

January 17, 2007

Here’s an odd twist. For the last two weeks, Republicans have been daring — almost begging — Democrats to take up a measure cutting off funding for the war in Iraq. Polls notwithstanding, the right believes Dems would be walking into a political nightmare.

It came as a surprise, therefore, to see House Republicans go in a far different direction today.

House Republicans plan to introduce a bill Wednesday that would prohibit Congress from cutting off funding for troops in the field.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced that Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, will sponsor the bill. […]

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said Republicans and Democrats should agree on supporting continued funding for troops and that Johnson’s experience in Vietnam gives him insight into the debate on funding the war in Iraq. “He knows what it feels like sitting in a cell when Congress cuts off funding for a war, and he’ll never let that happen again,” Cantor said.

A Republican aide emphasized that unlike the expected Iraq resolution sponsored by Democrats on the president’s proposal, the GOP proposal would be a new law.

This strikes me as odd for a few reasons. One, for political purposes, Republicans had been hoping that Dems at least tried to cut off funding for the war. Now they’re saying Dems shouldn’t be able to, whether they want to or not.

Two, the whole argument behind the legislation is largely moot.

As Greg Sargent explained:

What makes this move intriguing is that Dems have repeatedly been on record saying that they won’t defund “troops in the field.” The measure presumably is meant to apply to possible future efforts by Dems to block funding for additional troops, something that some Dems are considering. It’s unclear as yet how the mechanics of such a confrontation would unfold.

Indeed, Brendan Daly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman, added, “It sounds like they’re trying to play politics. We’ve said repeatedly we support funding for troops in the field.”

And three, this new House GOP effort would undermine the power of the House now and forevermore. The ability of lawmakers (any lawmakers) to cut off funds for a president’s war (any president, any war) is fundamental to the system of checks and balances. Even if we put aside the merit behind the idea of cutting off funds, if this new measure became law, the House would be nearly powerless to check a president’s authority — a check which previous Congresses have utilized on several occasions. (Would the House GOP want to give up this power if a Democratic president was screwing up a major war?)

I doubt the measure is going anywhere — House Dems probably won’t be working too hard to give the proposal a lot of committee and/or floor consideration — but regardless, the whole iniative comes across as a weak stunt. Usually, the House GOP is better at these kinds of games — being in the minority has really affected their judgment.

Usually, the House GOP is better at these kinds of games — being in the minority has really affected their judgment.

And thank God they are not the majority anymore. They are so anxious to amend and abreviate the power of congress in favor of a dictator that I am shocked that they did not think of doing such a thing before they lost control. This little stunt just proves how undeserving they are to hold or use power.

  • This is the same Sam Johnson who recently joked about dropping nuclear bombs on Syria.

    According to Roll Call, Johnson said he told the president: “Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ’em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8449-2005Mar4.html

    The man is a nutcase.

  • Same old GOP—trying to toss some red meat to the base. The problem this time is that the meat has already been consumed, digested, excreted, and sent down the porcelain receptable.

    “Bones” is playing a stalling tactic here, and it’s obvious that he wasn’t the brains behind “The Frist and Bones Show.”

    And how about that Johnson character? He’s probably the only man alive who says “I can fly and F-15” with two nukes that are bigger than the damned plane. Must be those Pat Robertson power-shakes again….

  • …that Johnson’s experience in Vietnam gives him insight into the debate on funding the war in Iraq. “He knows what it feels like sitting in a cell when Congress cuts off funding for a war, and he’ll never let that happen again,” Cantor said.

    How many POW’s do we have in Iraq, maybe one, but they won’t let that stop a former POW acting like we can’t leave because we might strand non-existent POW’s. WOW.

  • this new House GOP effort would undermine the power of the House now and forevermore

    I fail to see how this aspect isn’t consistent with the authoritarian/Republcian agenda…

  • Man, if only the Dems had a dedicated media outlet (you know, like FOX for the Republican’ts).
    If that were the case, as soon as Sam “Nuke’Em” Johnson was mentioned, they could slip in something like “Gee Steve, isn’t he the man that wants us to drop nuclear bombs on civilians in the middle east?”
    Too bad all the networks are owned by the GOP.

  • Yeah, they were dancing back and forth, all sweaty and saying, “I dare you to step across this line”, as long as they thought such a move (as cutting off funding) was either not technically possible, or stood no chance of succeeding. Once again their illusion of GOP invulnerability, so last month, leads them astray.

  • Our troops were out of Vietnam for almost 2 years before Congress cut the funds for the South Vietnamese government by a little less than half. Funding or not funding probably didn’t have much affect on the POW situation.

  • “… being in the minority has really affected their judgment.”

    I don’t know — this is the kind of stuff Rs pulled when they were in the majority. I think they just forgot those days are gone.

  • What Dale said.

    “Republicans have been daring — almost begging — Democrats to take up a measure cutting off funding for the war in Iraq.”

    Daring or begging. Tony Blankley dares, Pat Buchanan begs. But they make it pretty clear to the preceptive person:

    “Our president has got us stuck in a quagmire. We need to get out. But we don’t have the balls to go to the White House and tell him to start pulling troops out of Iraq. So we want you, the Democrats, to cut the funding for the troops to force his hand. Of course, we will not evidence any gratitude for your saving the country from this mess. Nope, we’ll lie and blame you and say you lost the war in Iraq. It’s just the kind of people we are.” – the gutless Republican’ts

  • Good God! Other commentators are right. What the hell does sitting in a POW cell have to do with cutting off funds? Did we suddenly write off our POWs? Not that I recall.

    This sanctifying of military men — and especially imbuing them with some kind of superior insight on military affairs — has reached the absurd. Several of us here were in the military, but that doesn’t make us military geniuses. What it does, is remind us that a significant number of troops, officer and enlisted, are stupid, immoral, immature, violent, and/or desperate to get out of a uniform. In other words, just like they were before they wore a uniform.

  • This bill would not even constrain any future action. Congress could pass a bill defunding the troops and just add a provision at the top of it repealing the old law. They can’t actually abdicate their Constitutional powers. They need an Amendment for that.

  • Sam Johnson has three excuses for being a moron:

    1. He was born in Texas.

    2. He made a career out of the Hair Farce.

    3. He’s a Texas Republican.

  • There is absolutely no reason why the Dems should allow this to even come to a vote. Without Dem approval in its “Ms. Nice Guy” phase it will not get there.

  • ScottW: “How many POW’s do we have in Iraq, maybe one, but they won’t let that stop a former POW acting like we can’t leave because we might strand non-existent POW’s. WOW.”

    I was thinking the same thing. But then it occurred to me: Johnson is saying he wants to prevent funds being cut off while he’s sitting in a cell. Does anybody know what this guy’s house looks like?

  • Our president has got us stuck in a quagmire. We need to get out. But we don’t have the balls to go to the White House and tell him to start pulling troops out of Iraq. So we want you, the Democrats, to cut the funding for the troops to force his hand. Of course, we will not evidence any gratitude for your saving the country from this mess. Nope, we’ll lie and blame you and say you lost the war in Iraq. It’s just the kind of people we are.” – the gutless Republican’ts — Lance, @11

    Translation, a la old Chinese saw: “you want chestnut pull from fire, you need very long tongs. Or Democrats”

    Yeah, Lance, where have you been? (after petorado, @16)

    • Comments are closed.