What's going to happen to the Murtha plan?

by Kagro X

When Condoleezza Rice told America on Sunday that the president would defy legislation restricting his options in continuing the war in Iraq, she may have sparked more questions than answers.

You may have asked yourself, "What business is it of the Secretary of State to issue a statement like that?" And that'd be a good question. You wouldn't be the first to wonder whether grafting the former National Security Adviser onto the Department of State had left us without a functioning diplomatic capacity.

Maybe you asked yourself on what grounds the president would feel entitled to defy an Act of Congress. I discussed that at Daily Kos the other day.

Or maybe you asked yourself, "How does Rice know for sure that the president is going to do that?" The answer to that one is, because he's already done it.

From all indications, the plan proposed by Rep. Jack Murtha, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, would include (among other things) restrictions on the use of DoD funds for the deployment of troops who haven't been afforded adequate time for resetting and retraining at home. Conservative Democrats, led by the so-called Blue Dogs, are reportedly nervous about Murtha's plan, and may be floating a less-confrontational approach that merely requires the president to affirmatively certify when he orders such a deployment.

But in the face of Rice's declaration, does either plan really stand a chance?

Not by themselves, if Bush's record can inform the matter.

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The Act authorizes funding to defend the United States and its interests abroad and provides much- needed flexibility to manage effectively the personnel and taxpayer resources devoted to the national defense.

Section 541(a) of the Act amends section 991 of title 10 of the United States Code to purport to place limits on the number of days on which a member of the Armed Forces may be deployed, unless the Secretary of Defense or a senior civilian or military officer to whom the Secretary has delegated authority under section 541(a) approves the continued deployment. Section 1023 purports to place restrictions on use of the U.S. Armed Forces in certain operations. The executive branch shall construe the restrictions on deployment and use of the Armed Forces in sections 541(a) and 1023 as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

What you are looking at is George W. Bush's signing statement nullifying language in a duly-passed and signed Act of Congress, that appeared to require something considerably less embarrassing to the "administration" than what conservative House Democrats demand as an alternative to Murtha's outright prohibitions. As you can see, The Decider considers it to be within his "inherent powers" to ignore even this minimal inconvenience when he violates the readiness standards of our Armed Forces.

In other words, we've actually been down this road before -- and with almost-unanimous Republican support (minus Ron Paul) -- but to no avail.

Do the Blue Dogs, whose criticism of the Murtha plan is being led by Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Jim Cooper of Tennessee, really think they're onto something here? Given that Bush ignored even this kid glove treatment, do we really think the Blue Dogs think they're gonna put one past the president by "forcing" him to approve the deployments personally? Neither plan stands a chance at being accepted by the "administration," but at least Murtha's had the virtue of actually trying to do something about the president's continued violation of military readiness policy, even if some would consider it much less than necessary. For the president to defy Murtha's funding prohibitions sets up a direct constitutional conflict. For the president to defy the Blue Dog plan saves him some paperwork.

But maybe that's just what the Blue Dogs want. Because the president's rejection of the Murtha plan puts them right where they're most afraid to be: actually confronting the president on Iraq.

The House Democratic Caucus meets tonight to see if the Members can hash out a strategy that they can pursue with sufficient unity. The question the media will be covering, no doubt, is which plan, if any, emerges from that meeting with the leadership's blessing. The real story -- that all plans (even those approved by Republicans, like that in the 2004 bill) will suffer the same fate at the hands of a president who believes himself above constraint by Congress and the courts alike -- will likely get no coverage at all.

Comments

[Mimikatz]

That's why at some point they have to refuse to pass a FY 2008 budget at all. No. Money. Period. That would be something he couldn't construe away. The House leadership has to put it up for a vote, and if they don't, no money.

I can't see that happening, partly because by the time the Dems get up the courage, we will have attacked Iran and the blowback will begin washing up. But still. You have to be willing to walk away from the deal to be negotiating from strength.

[Mimikatz]

At the very least, they should refuse to fund the VP's office.

[smiley]

How do we know this isn't just a bluff? Sure, they say they'll ignore the law before it's passed, but does that mean that they'll really do it?

I think Levin should call the bluff.

[KenBee]

So let's see, Sen. JoeJoe is threatening to sabotage the Dems in the Senate and is causing us to stall any possibility of the elected representatives to keep Shooter's 4th branch from instigating a war on Iran?
The House is stalled for the reasons in this story...where does that leave us?
The lives of all our troops and sailors in the Gulf region and those of our allies and the tens of thousands in Iran are at risk and this is made moreso by Sen JoeJoe? I'll remember that when I need to.
And that's without the use of nukes: that would kill hundreds of thousands all the way into China and beyond, depending on the obvious factors ...
The people and culture of Iran don't deserve to be victimized by these lunatics, and neither do our armed forces and their families need to be held hostage to the Kleptocracy. Now is the time for action, careers aside.

So basically we are still waiting for a mutiny or an act of God to prevent this disaster

I say call the bluff and put all these wafflers and enablers feet to the wall...I mean fire.

[ks]

What's going to happen to the Murtha plan?

..watch the replay of todays Senate Appropriations hearing @ C-Span:

Fiscal Year 2007 Supplemental Appropriations Appropriations

[jwp]

KX,

As I am sure you appreciate, Congress and the public have a keen, conservative instinct to "act normal" at all times. That puts us all off-balance when a radical is in the oval office.

The usual ground rules are out the window; the usual power relationships are reversed.

You know the old saw. If you owe the bank a million dollars, then the bank has control over you. If you owe the bank 10 billion dollars, then you control the bank.

Bush holds America hostage by our sense of identity. We want to think that we are basically good and our government is basically honorable. Indeed, few things are more cherished by the public than its collective conceit that America, and Americans, are exceptionsl. It's the 10 billion dollars that we loaned Bush when we elected him President (more or less) on two occasions.

With that outstanding loan, legalities will be ignored. We have the right to foreclose, but the foreclosure proceedings would be too damaging to what we hold dearest -- our self respect. It won't happen.

What hope is there?

Maybe some. I am not sure. Resignations in the military would be an extremely powerful propaganda. It might be enough to ignite a revolt among Republicans -- who fear for their jobs, and the fate of their party.

Otherwise, the horror of the world washes over us in a numbing way, like the flickering images on the nightly news.

[John Palcewski]

Let's see. Democrats won a majority in the house. Democrats have a slim majority in the senate. Sixty-seven percent of Americans want us out Iraq. A majority disapprove of the President's performance.

Despite this, Democrats are paralyzed and afraid to craft a law that reflects the will of the American people, a law that the president almost certainly will ignore with a smirk.

Before the election it was the power of the Republican majority that kept this country on its reckless, bloody, unconstitutional course. After the election it is the utter cowardice and ineptitude of Democrats.

Which is worse?

[Jodi]

It is very simple people!

The Democrats in office, those whom you elected, and think as DemFromCT used to say, "can govern" need to stop looking for a magic wand, and just pass legislation.

Perhaps it won't get pass the Senate Filibuster, perhaps it won't get past CT-Joe, perhaps the President will veto it, but they need to get off their butts and DO SOMETHING!

Then they can go to the American Public, and say we are passing or trying to pass the bills you want, and we need you to demonstrate in any way you can, by protest, by money, by polls, by letters, by calls, by promises in order to get us what we need to have the Government we all want.

Instead, it appears to me that the Democratss are lining up for the photo sessions, the patronage, the lobbyist troughs, the PACs, the big donors, etc. No different from the Republicans.

[Chris Loosley]

As greenhouse commented so aptly in the previous thread, "Hey Tokyo Jodi, put a sock in it."

[Jodi]

So Cymro

that is your contribution? Just mean words.

[freepatriot]

at least Cymro is coherent

and he's got your number, toyko jodi

[Jodi]

freepatriot,

is this is the level of the conversation you intend to bring to the Democrats' campaign for 2008?

I see disapointment ahead for you.

[freepatriot]

yep, and those American submarines are stuck in the Sea of Japan too, right Tokyo jodi ???

and the invasion of Okinowa was a big failure for the American Army, right tokyo jodi ???

and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere will live forever

face it tokyo jodi

you've been weighted, measured, and found to be a fool

ain't it a bitch when everybody sees thru your bullshit, and realizes that you're not a serious or reasoned voice ???

sucks to be you, donm't it ???

enjoy the rest of your pathetic life

[Jodi]

What can I say?

Is this the level of "the conversation," "the journey," "the ability to govern" and ideas that the Democrats are bringing to the National Table and to Washington, DC?

I fear that things will be no better than with the Republicans, who will certainly use this inepitude to springboard right back into the saddle..

What a mess!

[freepatriot]

yo tokyo jodi

ya get what ya give

sucks to be you, don't it

adults can have real conversations

trolls like you receive the ridicule and derision you deserve

what goes around comes around

karma is a bitch, and she knows where you live