Rep. John Murtha is bidding to pre-empt the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief by attaching so many preconditions to a $93 billion supplemental defense appropriations bill that troops and other reinforcements cannot be deployed to Iraq. The Pennsylvania Democrat and like-minded colleagues from both sides of the aisle in both chambers of Congress are giving Swift’s Lilliputians a bad name.
Unwilling to stand up and move outright to cut off funding for a war they now oppose, Murtha and other House Democrats — joined by a handful of opportunistic GOPers — instead passed a meaningless nonbinding resolution of disapproval. They didn’t bother to offer an alternative to President Bush’s troop surge to secure Baghdad and then progressively turning security over to the Iraqi military and police. Now Murtha and company scurry about throwing tiny legislative ropes here and there hoping to tie Bush down. This is political farce, not the actions of a serious legislative body.
But Murtha, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, knows that, sooner or later, even a giant like the U.S. military will be crippled if enough of those little ropes are approved. He frankly admits that his intention is to cripple Bush’s ability to conduct the war by making it impossible for the military to surge troop levels in Iraq. Employing such a tactic while our nation is engaged in armed hostilities abroad is nothing less than an attempted congressional usurpation of clear presidential authority. Besides harming America’s ability to fight and win the war against terrorism, serious damage will be done to the Constitution’s long-standing balance of powers among the legislative and executive branches if Murtha and company succeed.
Recalling the catastrophes that befell millions in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia after America’s withdrawal from Southeast Asia, many political and military analysts today predict massive bloodshed and dangerous instability in the Middle East if U.S. troops fail in their Iraq mission. Not Murtha. “People tend to say well, if we leave, there’s going to be chaos. I don’t believe that … 78 percent of the Iraqis say … we’re the ones that are causing this [violence], and al-Qaida is going to … disappear” once U.S. troops are withdrawn.
Much of the Democratic leadership now trying to tie Bush down in 2007 voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq in 2002. In the Senate, 29 Democrats voted to approve the joint resolution, which passed 77 to 23, including current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., former Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, and current frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
In the House, 81 Democrats — including current House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Murtha voted “yea.” At least House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has been consistent, being among the 126 Democrats who voted no in 2002. Now for the good of the country, she should tell her Lilliputian colleagues to get serious, one way or the other.
