On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Alas, I looked up the Iraq war authorization, and it specifically says it's
> just what the War Powers Resolution requires. So, Weisberg's all wet.
I'm sure you're right, but I'm not sure I follow you. If the Iraqi war authorization was exactly the kind of authorization that the War Powers Act requires, how does that make it not rescindable if all War Powers resolutions can be rescinded? On which point is Weisberg all wet?
Of course, this still leaves Michael Hoover's objection, that Joint Resolutions require either Presidential signatures or 2/3rds majorities, and neither is available. That fact seems to confirm that it is true that Congress can't do anything alone -- unless the majority for doing so is huge.
FWIW, below is a different version of Weisberg's argument that appeared a few weeks ago. It also seems to run up against the problem of a Joint Resolution needing a President's signature. But after Born goes into the details of how such a resolution might be drafted, he does make it sound like a mainstream argument by the end. And forcing Bush to veto something so reasonable sounding could well be another small solid step towards further delegitimating the war and him.
Michael
===
From the Baltimore Sun
A way out of Iraq that sidesteps Bush
By Roscoe C. Born
January 4, 2007
A new year, a new Congress, a new milestone as U.S. deaths exceed
3,000: This is a decisive moment in the urgent matter of the chaos and
carnage in Iraq. With the report of the Iraq Study Group completed
(and seemingly shelved), and with President Bush closeted with his war
advisers, the question raised in conversation, on television news and
in the press is: What will Mr. Bush decide?
A Newsweek cover, for example, asks, "Will Bush Listen?" An op-ed by
David Ignatius in The Washington Post ends with these words: "The man
under the spotlight knows he will have to make this decision alone."
The unexamined premise is that America's next course of action in Iraq
depends entirely on the final judgment of one man, George W. Bush.
But the nation's next step is not the president's alone to decide. The
more important question is: What will Congress decide? There is a way
for Congress to swiftly stanch the flow of American blood in Iraq
without a bitter, partisan debate over the causes or conduct of the
war.
Although President Bush might have invaded Iraq even without
congressional approval, he did seek and get that authority in "The
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq," passed by Congress in October 2002 and still in effect.
That document presented 23 declarations of "fact," stated in "whereas"
clauses, that, in the president's view, warranted his use of our
military to invade Iraq. Congress agreed and authorized this war.
Now, regardless of whether those statements were at that time false or
misleading, and putting aside any confrontations about the blame for
the war, the fundamental "whereas" clauses that were the basis for war
are now clearly wrong or no longer applicable. A few examples:
o "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national
security of the United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear capability,
and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
That declaration, as we now know, was not true in 2002 and is not true
today. Even if it had been true, the Iraqi regime that allegedly
committed those offenses no longer exists. Today's Iraqi government
poses no military threat to any other nation.
o "Whereas the current Iraq regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people."
The "current Iraq regime" referred to did use chemical weapons against
its enemies and its own citizens. But the leader of that regime has
been captured and hanged. Again, Iraq today poses no military threat
to anyone.
o "Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law No. 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace
that regime."
The United States has invaded Iraq and removed "the current Iraqi
regime" from power and has promoted a series of efforts to create a
democratic Iraqi government - all declared by President Bush to be
successful.
Whatever motives led the president to ask, and Congress to grant,
authority to use the U.S. military to invade Iraq, the justifications
stated in whereas after whereas are not true today. Yet they remain on
the books, still the official position of Congress.
So the vital decision is not President Bush's alone, and Congress
should not wait to proceed on its own. Congress is morally obligated -
now - to review its outdated joint resolution authorizing force
against Iraq, and to undertake a new joint resolution declaring, in
essence, "Whereas the purposes of the original authorization have been
served; whereas the stated reasons justifying the authorization no
longer exist; whereas the objectionable Iraqi regime has been removed
and the new Iraqi regime poses no military threat to its neighbors or
the United States; that, therefore, U.S. military forces are no longer
authorized to remain in Iraq."
Far-fetched? Not in the least. Congress used this very procedure in
1993 to withdraw U.S. troops from Somalia.
Their orderly departure should begin as promptly as the military
protocols for force protection will allow and be completed within six
months of the passage of a new joint resolution.
It is important to note that this approach bypasses, for now, a
divisive debate about Mr. Bush's war policies. If Congress wishes to
examine the causes of this war, that is a separate matter that should
not interfere with a rational review of a joint resolution that is
obsolete.
Roscoe C. Born, a Sykesville resident, was Washington editor of
Barron's magazine and a reporter in The Wall Street Journal's
Washington bureau. His e-mail is roscobornj at aol.com.
Copyright © 2006, The Baltimore Sun