|
|
 |
Anti-Presidential Congress
// Separation of Powers Grows in US
At the end of last week, opponents of the war in Iraq in both chambers of the US Congress struck a painful blow to President Bush. On Friday, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the deployment of additional troops to Iraq, and the next day the Senate discussed a similar measure. Although the proposal in the Senate did not garner enough votes to move onto the agenda for debate, more than half of the senators in attendance voted in favor of the resolution. The talk now in Washington is of a showdown over Iraq between the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress, and some wonder whether the resolutions in the House and the Senate may signify a widening gulf between the branches of government that may precipitate a constitutional crisis in America.
Iraq Shows Who is Who
After the unceasing debates on Capitol Hill last week regarding George Bush's new strategy in Iraq, the US Congress showed its colors regarding the military operations in Iraq during votes on resolutions put forth by Democratic opponents of the White House. Though the resolutions are nonbinding, the votes themselves were of fundamental importance, since they gave the voters a clear picture of the position that their congressional representatives take on what has become the most significant political issue in America.
The House of Representatives was the first to show its displeasure with President Bush's plan to send more than 20,000 additional American soldiers to Iraq. On Friday, 246 legislators voted for a resolution condemning the administration's plan, while 182 voted against it.
On Saturday, the Senate met for a rare weekend session to give its opinion on the matter. At the session, 56 senators voted to debate a nonbinding resolution expressing disagreement with the actions of the White House in Iraq, versus 34 who voted against adding the resolution to the agenda. The opponents of the war needed 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster. This is the second time in two weeks that the Democrats have failed to force a debate on the resolution.
Nevertheless, despite the appearance of failure in the Senate, not only did the Democrats not act beaten – they actually claimed victory, insisting that a radical about-face has already taken place in the attitude in Congress. The Republicans are increasingly jumping ship and taking the side of the Democrats, which is leaving the White House more and more isolated and weakening the already thinning ranks of its allies. "A majority of the United States Senate is against the escalation in Iraq," said Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "As for the Republicans who chose once again to block further debate and protect President Bush, the American people now know they support the escalation [of the war]" by sending in more American troops. The conclusion that the vote in the Senate was a victory for the Democrats was confirmed by influential Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has continued to support President Bush on the question of Iraq. "This is a very, very sad Saturday for the U.S. Senate on the heels of a disaster in the U.S. House," said Senator Graham, who accused the Democrats of "playing stupid political games while people are off over in Iraq trying to win this war."
Significant attention was also paid to the seven influential Republicans who broke ranks to vote with the Democratic camp: Norman Coleman (MN), Susan Collins (ME), Chuck Hagel (NE), Olympia Snowe (ME), Arlen Specter (PA), Gordon Smith (OR), and John Warner (VA). Only two of the seven, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, do not intend to join the fight for the presidency in 2008. The others were clearly moving quickly to distance themselves from the Iraq campaign, which currently enjoys the support of less than 70% of Americans.
For various reason, another nine Republicans did not take part in the Senate vote. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), one of the most zealous supporters of the war in Iraq and also an early front-runner in the presidential race, was away at a pre-election campaign rally in Ohio. Another two Republicans preferred to take trips to Iraq rather than appear at the vote on Capital Hill, which Senator McCain derided as meaningless.
Cutting Off Funding is More Effective than Pacifism
The voting in Congress took place against the background of new steps by the Bush administration that show the administration's determination to see the war in Iraq to a victorious conclusion. On Saturday, while the Senate was reviewing the resolution on Iraq, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rica arrived in Baghdad for an unexpected visit, where she met with the Iraqi leadership and approved the rollout of an ambitious new plan by the American military to secure the situation in the Iraqi capital.
Meanwhile, the American media was buzzing with discussions of the deployment of more soldiers to Iraq. The plan unveiled by President Bush in January of this year has already brought troops from the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division to the country, and another brigade is in Kuwait, finishing preparations for deployment to Iraq. Another three brigades will join the contingent in Baghdad in March, April, and May, respectively. Finally, the Pentagon is also preparing to deploy two battalions of Marines to Iraq's western Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni insurgency.
The president's opponents in Congress intend to do everything in their power to hinder the administration's plans, which they may yet succeed in doing with the last powerful lever remaining in their hands: funding. Yesterday Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged that Congress may undermine George Bush's plans by refusing to approve the almost $100 billion in extra funds requested by the administration to finance its plans for escalation: "The main question is whether the Democrats will go further and attempt to put funding in question," said Senator McConnell, claiming that "the only vote in Congress that actually means anything is the vote on whether to give funds to the troops."
The Democrats have already indicated their decision. "The Senate will keep fighting to force President Bush to change course," promised Majority Leader Reid on Saturday.
Well-known Democratic Senator John Murtha (D-PA) also focused on the issue of appropriation of funds. According to Senator Murtha, before additional troops can be sent to Iraq, the Pentagon should be required to meet a series of provisions to ensure the necessary level of training and equipment for the troops. The provisions would be introduced in the Senate as restrictions on the president's request for additional funds. The Democratic leadership claims that the restrictions would make duty in Iraq safer for American troops, but the Republicans see the provision as an attempt by the Democrats to put a wrench in the spokes of the Iraq campaign and intend to block the initiative.
Is American History Repeating Itself?
The open confrontation between the US Congress and President Bush is causing observers in Washington to mull over more than 200 years of numerous collisions between American presidents and legislators. America's first president, George Washington, faced such a conflict in 1792, and the twentieth century saw plenty of dramatic face-offs between Congress and the White House. For example, the US Congress ignored President Woodrow Wilson and rejected the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War, and during the Second World War Congress tried to strip President Franklin Roosevelt of the power to come to the aid of America's allies against fascist Germany. During the Cold War, Republican President Gerald Ford found himself in the unenviable position of running headlong onto the pikes of a Democratic Congress.
The danger of a constitutional crisis, which could be the ultimate consequence of the standoff between Congress and the president over the Iraq question, was brought up at the end of last week by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Senator Lieberman, who was once a ranking Democrat before being voted back into office last year as an Independent, called the Iraq resolutions in Congress a prologue to a serious confrontation between the legislative and executive branches of government: "[This] is the first skirmish in an escalating battle that threatens to consume our government over many months ahead," warned Senator Lieberman in a speech on Friday.
Sergey Strokan
All the Article in Russian as of Feb. 19, 2007
|
|
|
