Iraq

If we had a responsible government, you’d think that if we’re spending billions of dollars on the President’s personal War on Iraq, support could be found for other needs as well.

However, we don’t have a reasonable government. Seen at economicindicators.gov:

Due to budgetary constraints, the Economic Indicators service (http://www.economicindicators.gov) will be discontinued effective March 1, 2008.

Just before the end of the year, I observed that Bush’s pocket veto of a defense spending bill due to its exposure of the current Iraqi regime to lawsuits in the U.S. for Saddam’s actions seemed a little fishy, given that the Senate was still technically in session.

An editorial in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times goes into a little more detail as to the weirdness, treating it also as yet another attempt of the Bush administration to expand the power of the White House:

In this case, Bush tried to have it both ways. He pocket vetoed the bill as if Congress were entirely out of session — but then he did, in fact, return it to Congress by sending it and an outline of his objections to the House clerk. He did so, according to his veto message, “to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.”

If this all sounds like constitutional arcania, consider the outcome if Bush’s faux pocket veto stands unchallenged: Presidents would have absolute veto power any time Congress is not actually in session, bestowing on the chief executive the very authority the founders sought to deny the office. And why did Bush use this veto gambit now? Maybe because the bill in question passed by veto-proof margins.

Regardless of the motive, the Constitution does not allow presidents to pick the kind of veto they wish to use, and it certainly does not condone a pocket veto just because an override is likely. The existing regular veto is plenty potent, and Congress cannot be denied its constitutional right to review vetoes as long as bill return is possible. Congress should do what it did before: treat Bush’s action as a return veto because the bill was returned. And presidents should curb the impulse to play fast and loose with constitutional powers.

Hear, hear!

I still say that if Bush really believed his signing statements have meaning, this would have been one of those bills that such a tactic would be more reasonable.

Ah, if only we had the line-item veto….

Seen in the Courant:

President Bush on Friday used a “pocket veto” to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.[...]

The president’s objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were improved veterans’ benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.

The pocket veto means that troops will get a 3 percent raise Jan. 1 instead of the 3.5 percent the bill authorized.

There are a couple of things that strike me as peculiar here.

First, Bush 43 is the president whose love of “signing statements” is infamous. Wouldn’t vacating or re-interpreting part of a law on some argument of constitutional authority be exactly the reason the White House has been making such use of signing statements? While I can appreciate taking a principled stance of refusing to sign badly-written or poorly-thought-out legislation even when there is much to be desired within it…this seems like a funny time to take that stance. If ever there were a call for a “signing statement”, it would be this bill.

Second—pocket vetoes only work when Congress isn’t in session. Congress is technically still in session, with the Senate having token meetings to block the President’s ability to make recess appointments. If these token meetings are sufficient to prevent a recess appointment, wouldn’t it also be sufficient to preclude a pocket veto?

Or, am I missing something here?

Seen in the Times, a summary of a recent Muslim magazine interview with +Rowan, which apparently covered several topics:

[Archbishop Rowan Williams] said the crisis was caused not just by America’s actions but also by its misguided sense of its own mission. He poured scorn on the “chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity”.

Williams suggested American leadership had broken down: “We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working.”[...]

Given the schism that seems to be almost underway within the Episcopal Church USA…and the Anglican Communion as a whole, to a certain extent… it’s interesting seeing the Archbishop not mincing words.

Seen on the newswire:

Iraq’s top Shi’ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political leaders announced on Sunday they had reached consensus on some key measures seen as vital to fostering national reconciliation.

The agreement by the five leaders was one of the most significant political developments in Iraq for months and was quickly welcomed by the United States, which hopes such moves will ease sectarian violence that has killed tens of thousands.

What’s not clear to me is just how substantial this progress is, in part because of confused reporting, the increased politicization of the issue, and a certain degree of cynicism over the story expected to be told by the White House, and how many times positively-spun stories coming out of the White House have been proven to be oh-so-wrong.

Still, any progress is better than nothing, I suppose.

From the Political Insider blog at the AJC:

A University of Georgia researcher has determined that the world’s most powerful nations — including the United States — have had only a 39 percent success rate in military actions since World War II.

And based on her calculations, the current war in Iraq has a 26 percent probability of success — with an estimated duration of 10 years.

Apparently the study indicates that the cooperation of the adversary is a key factor affecting the odds of success of the military action.

It would seem to me that this should shed a bit of light on the administration’s stance of refusing to talk with entities that have some influence over Iraqi insurgents, like Iraq and Syria.

I encountered a nice article at Neomugwump that has what I’ll noninate as the quote of the day:

I have to say, just like the problem with the Republicans was that they never really thought through what it meant to invade Iraq, the Democrats are guilty of wanting to leave Iraq without really thinking through what that means for the Middle East and the world.

Expanding on that point, looking at how an unusually early, polarized primary campaign is coloring politics:

Maybe in another time, leaders in Washington would come together to solve these problems, not in ways that please the bases, but in ways that would benefit everyone. On Iraq, yes, I would agree with many that we have to start thinking about leaving. But how do we do that without creating a bigger mess? Many on the far left don’t seem to have an answer. They seemed to be more concerned about “ending George Bush’s war” instead of trying to create an endgame that doesn’t end up biting us in the ass.

Republicans have to face up to the idea that you aren’t going to get rid of 12 million illegal aliens. So, how do we find a way to make them legal without just creating amnesty? And oh yeah, they need to remember that Saint Ronald was bullish on immigration.

I could naively ask the Rodney King question, “can’t we all get along”, but an awareness that amicabilty doesn’t help the ratings at CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews keeps me from doing so.

Andrew Sullivan has posted a lengthy comparison of the “Enhanced Interrogation” techniques employed by the Gestappo during World War II, with those used by the U.S. on unlawful combatants.

The entire article is worth reading, and there’s far too much for me to quote here. However, the punchline of the article provides a pretty good synopsis:

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I’m not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn’t-somehow-torture - “enhanced interrogation techniques” - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes.

With articles like these, it’s hard to remember that 7 years ago, CNN was referred to as the Clinton News Network:

[CNN Iraq Analyst General Don] Shepperd said Iraq’s neighbors would be drawn into the all-out civil war likely if U.S. forces left too quickly. Iran could move in to further strengthen its influence in southern Iraq; Turkey likely would move against the Kurds in the north; and Saudi Arabia would be inclined to take action to protect Sunnis in western Iraq, he said.

The oil sector could also get hit hard, with Iran potentially mining the Persian Gulf and attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz, putting a stranglehold on oil flow, Shepperd says.

“Oil prices would skyrocket,” he said — perhaps soaring from current prices of about $60 a barrel to more than $100 a barrel, with consequent rises at the gas pump.

The entire article touches on why, despite my distrust of the administration and the ill-will I feel over the deceptions, delusions, or misrepresentations in the build-up to war, I subscribe to the Powell “You break it; you bought it” Doctrine.

I can’t help but wonder why we haven’t heard a few folks in the media for professing newfound understanding for why Bush-41 opted not to depose Saddam in the Kuwait war.

Meanwhile, Tom Delay has taken a shot at the Iraqi parliament over their decision to take a two-month vacation at this time:

The notion that Iraqi’s lawmakers are seriously considering a two month long siesta during the most desperate hours in the young life of their nation’s fledgling democrary [sic] is simply incomprehensible to me. I don’t recall the Continental Congress taking break after Manhattan fell to the British, and I would advise a similar strategy to Iraq’s elected officials.

I agree that he’s got a point. However, I can’t help but suspect that a review of the Delay era of Congress might turn up a few occasions when Tom didn’t speak out about ill-timed or excessive Congressional recesses.

For the past several days, the press and the blogosphere have been full of discussion of the Dems’ including an Iraq withdrawal deadline in a military funding bill, and Bush feeling obliged to actually veto the thing (rather than simply negate it with a signing statement).

And in true centrist, waffling fashion, I have to say that I agree in part with both sides.

• Considering the current political climate, I think it was entirely appropriate for the Democrats to relay the message that the American public doesn’t see value in prolonging our military involvement in Iraq.
   
• However, by the same token, I think that Bush and his supporters do have a point in that publicizing actual scheduled dates for withdrawal only opens the door to permitting militia and insurgents to better plan their attacks against us and each other

For better or worse, the Bush is the Commander in Chief. While Congress has a duty to act as a check on the President’s actions and to telegraph the people’s wishes to the Executive, it is the job of the Commander in Chief to determine how best to wield the military’s might.

Putting a deadline on withdrawal in a funding bill is not the right way for Congress to exercise its oversight in this matter.

Congress’ options, I think, are either to defund the military, replace the Commander in Chief, or find some other way to pressure the Commander in Chief to do his job better.

The first two of those are probably too extreme in the minds of most folks. So why not pursue the third option? Perhaps, rather than de-funding the military, Congress could pursue other sanctions against the White House.

For example, I’d love to see Congress cut the salary of the President, Vice-President, and cabinet members to the equivalent of minimum wage for the remainder of our part of the Iraq conflict. You retain funding to keep our troops paid equipped to defend themselves, while making the situation uncomfortable enough for key folks in the Executive Branch to perhaps feel more inclined to rectify matters.