There are several big items in the media today about the Bush administration diverting $700 million from appropriations meant for the war Afghanistan and spending it to prepare for our invasion of Iraq. This controversy really seems to be going somewhere.
First up, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon is more-or-less admitting that it subverted the legislative process.
The Pentagon acknowledged that in tandem with its secret planning for the Iraq war two years ago, it funded 21 military-related projects in the Mideast when the Bush administration had yet to seek a war resolution from Congress.
The administration said in late summer 2002 that $178.4 million was spent on projects that could be justified as part of the larger war against terrorism. The first detailed accounting of that spending was provided to Congress just this week, and even lawmakers who supported military action against Saddam Hussein say the Defense Department stretched its authority and hid facts that should have been shared with lawmakers.
[…]
Congress had given the administration broad discretion on spending after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Still, the White House was required to consult with lawmakers, and the military knew the Appropriations leadership was especially sensitive at that time to prejudging the war debate.
In fact, this WSJ item points to a motive for the Bush White House’s decision to hide this information from lawmakers: administration officials were afraid Congress would say, “No.”
Just as the 21 projects were being funded in August and September 2002, for example, lawmakers were resisting demands by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for a $10 billion reserve fund that lawmakers feared would be applied to Iraq.
This is not an insignificant detail. Rumsfeld was asking for more money, Congress thought the money might be for Iraq, so lawmakers balked and focused on Afghanistan. Call it the “one war at a time” approach. Realizing Congress’ skepticism, the Bush administration decided to just spend Afghanistan money on Iraq and keep it a secret.
I hate to sound repetitive, but the White House is not allowed to “stretch its authority and hide facts” from Congress when it comes spending tax dollars. The fact that this happened to secretly prepare for a war, of all things, makes it the most serious of presidential abuses.
Another report in The Hill noted that lawmakers seem to be fully aware of the seriousness of this problem.
Lawmakers and administration officials are scurrying to understand whether President Bush siphoned off money appropriated for the war in Afghanistan to pay for preparations for a future Iraqi invasion.
[…]
The supplemental spending bill approved Sept. 14 granted unprecedented flexibility to the president to decide how the money would be spent. But lawmakers wrote, “The president shall consult with chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer of these funds.”
Bush’s Office of Management and Budget, according to The Hill, sent Congress updates while the money was being spent, but lawmakers only received “vague reports” under “broad categories.”
An Aug. 31, 2002, report itemized Pentagon spending: “increased situational awareness,” $5.12 billion; “enhanced force protection,” $1.52 billion; “improved command and control,” $1.4 billion; “offensive counterterrorism,” $1.86 billion; “increased worldwide posture,” $4.89 billion; “Initial Crisis Response,” $588 million.
The Pentagon also spent $1.44 billion on “Pentagon Repair/Upgrade,” $217 million on “other,” and $246 million on “airport security.”
Not exactly a detailed accounting of where our money was going. Could this reasonably constitute “consultation” with Congress about the “transfer of funds”?
And finally, the always-brilliant Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, delved into the controversy in a terrific Salon piece today.
To some people, these problems might seem to be too technical and picky, maybe even a lawyer’s quibble. If the president of the United States is sincerely trying to protect national security, and if a congressional appropriation can be read to permit him to do so, is it really terrible if he fails to consult with some legislators? But no mere quibble is involved. Under the Constitution, funds are appropriated by Congress, not the president. Even when national security is threatened, the president is constitutionally obliged to follow congressional restrictions on the expenditure of federal funds.
Sunstein concludes that the questions surrounding this controversy need answers.
At this point, we know too little to conclude that the White House violated the law. Perhaps Woodward misreported the facts. Perhaps some source of law can be found to justify what might otherwise appear to be a misuse of $700 million. The Department of Defense has recently insisted that it spent only $178 million, not $700 million, before Congress authorized the Iraq war. Apparently brushing aside the August 2002 appropriation, it contends that the use of $178 million was consistent with the Sept. 14, 2001, emergency appropriation and that it involved “non-Iraq specific items.”
In testimony before Congress on Tuesday, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz added that $63 million was taken from the 2002 appropriation for “operational requirements not directly tied to Iraq.”
These contentions, vague and conclusory as they seem, might ultimately be proved valid. But the underlying issues are extremely serious ones, and they deserve careful investigation. Perhaps the White House has a detailed explanation, on the facts and the law, that shows why any use of taxpayer funds was consistent with congressional enactments. But in the face of legitimate questions, such an explanation really needs to be offered. Its absence raises genuine problems both for democratic government and for the rule of law.