On Sunday, commenting on evoking the 2002 Iraq authorization, Sec. of State Rice said: “It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown.”
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann provided a "Special Comment" tonight in response. If you haven't seen it, Think Progress has the video.
Given the reception President Bush's people received on Capital Hill yesterday I thought it might be prudent to review the various avenues available to Congress for dealing with a President who has decided to send America's children to fight an unnecessary and unpopular war. Well, the Congress has the power of the purse. They can simply refuse to fund any war. That is what happened at the end of the Vietnam War. Some have argued that the public response to the video of Americans boarding choppers on the roof of the American embassy was the genesis of the modern Republican party. Democrats are loath to allow that scene to be replayed.
What other tool does the Constitution provide the Congress for a President who has moved beyond his popular mandate?
Yesterday, Condi Rice was treated very rudely by several Senators as she tried to promote the President's “New Way Forward.” As I recall at least two Senators referenced the Administration's numerous lies in response to Congressional inquiries as supporting their skepticism about the President's “New Way Forward." The President's talk about Iran especially troubled some. Senator Joe Biden went so far as to announce that if the President attempted to widen the war to Iran without specific Congressional authority, the President would provoke a Constitutional crisis.
Of course, the phrase “Constitutional crisis” brings the word “impeachment” immediately to mind. For those playing at home, let us review how the impeachment process begins. Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that "the House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment." This means that it has the power to bring charges against President, Vice President, or cabinet members, such as Condi Rice. Such an impeachment process would normally start in the House Judiciary Committee. In the last congress the new Chairman John Conyers proposed H.Res.635 which called for the creation of a Select Committee to investigate various administration lies about Iraq, wiretapping and related matters, and to make recommendations about the sufficiency of evidence to support impeachment. If such a Select Committee were created, the House Judiciary Committee would consider any charges it might level and might adopt a resolution to conduct an "official inquiry." If that resolution passed the Judiciary Committee it would go to the House floor for a vote of the full house. An "official inquiry" resolution is considered a question of privilege so it has to be dealt with before any other business. If that resolution were passed by a majority vote, the Judiciary Committee would be directed to conduct an inquiry or investigation into the alleged crimes. Once the investigation is completed the Committee would draft and vote on Articles of Impeachment. The full House of Representatives would then debate and vote on each Article. If one of the Articles passed the official charged would now be officially impeached. The matter would then move on to the Senate for trial. Article 1, Section 3, United States Constitution. Elected Republicans would hold a prayer vigil on the steps of the Capital. Oh, sorry, Bush is not Clinton. His approval rating is about 27% so Republican Congress critters and Senators would probably skip the rally.
There, ladies and gentlemen, is the old way forward for any President who forgets he is working for the people.
The White House was quite taken aback by the degree of open hostility with which Congress greeted the president's new "plan" for Iraq. Everywhere an administration official appeared before a committee on Thursday they had a rough go of it, to say the least. For three hours Condoleeza Rice faced a brutal grilling by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that at times became downright hostile as she tried to sell the notion that this time they are confident they have a plan that will work to stabilize Iraq and achieve "victory."
Not one Senator, Democrat or Republican, expressed even tepid support for the presidents proposed escalation. Chuck Hagel became visibly irritated with Rice's semantic quiblings, and Barbara Boxer confronted the Secretary of State with visual aids - posters with bullet-points detailing her past lies. Even those not openly hostile made known in no uncertain terms that they had no confidence in the president's scheme for fostering a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
The bipartisan support the administration claimed they were hoping for was instead bipartisan condemnation. "I've gone along with the president on this, and I bought into his dream. And at this stage of the game, I don't think it's going to happen." Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) told Rice bluntly. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) offered a similar assessment. "I have supported you and the administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the administration's position. I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth."
The White House was dismayed that legislators were not only unwilling to embrace the new scheme; they didn't even appear too eager to shake it's hand. Over the past few days, over 130 lawmakers had been summoned to the hill for personal meetings with the president as he attempted to cultivate support, but to no avail. The lawmakers didn't appear to be willing to do much more than acknowledge that yet again, the president had a plan. (This is the fourth one since June, for those keeping score at home).
White House counsel Dan Bartlett continued to tout the party line, maintaining that one consequence of a failed U.S. effort in Iraq would be "an emboldened and strengthened Iran." He added that critics should do more than take shots at Bush's plan. "We do believe that those who have decided to reject this plan before it has an opportunity to work have a greater responsibility to propose something that will work," he said. "We have yet to see that from Democrats." (Someone should take a moment to remind Mr. Bartlett that the Administration has no track record to mandate confidence in absolutely anything they do or say. We had an election a couple of months ago that drove this point home, or should have. I would also like to remind Mr. Bartlett that the Democrats have offered their own plans. That he doesn't want to acknowledge this fact does not nullify their existence.)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) immediately threatened a filibuster if Democratic efforts to force a vote on a resolution disapproving the policy move forward, but opponents of the plan would most likely be able to muster the 60 votes needed to break his parliamentary obstacle. Part of me hopes it plays out that way - and hangs the sore loser appelation around McConnell's neck for all time...Remember the "Nuclear Option" that the Republicans threatened a couple of years ago when their cabal was threatening to trash years of tradition to install some specious judges?
There is little doubt that a fillibuster could be broken. Already six Senate Republicans have come out against the idea of escalation, and at least four more have expressed serious misgivings. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) predicted that the resolution would pick up 12 GOP votes, a count McConnell did not dispute.
Later in the day, Defense secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff did not fare much better in front of the House Armed Services Committee. They faces grueling questioning from multiple committee members regarding the timing of the escalation of troops, and several committee members from both parties questioned the level of commitment from the Iraqi government.
Nine House Republicans sent a letter to the president detailing opposition to any increase in troop strength. Democratic leaders said they will push a resolution on support for the president's proposal, and House Republicans said Bush risks a major defeat. For Republicans who narrowly escaped defeat in November, the coming vote could be a nightmare, they said.
Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA) said he "would not say there are a lot of enthusiastic members over here" in support of the president. "I have zero comfort level with escalating this," he said.
