| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
23 Apr 2004 07:58:51 AM |
| Object: |
Bob Woodward's Bush is no idealist -- just an incompetent....and a crook. |
From The American Prospect, 4/23/04:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7623
The $700 Million Question
The story that so totally deserves to be a scandal.
By David J. Sirota
The civics lesson of the Iran-Contra scandal was simple:
No matter how powerful or well-intentioned, Presidents cannot secretly
fund wars without the consent of Congress.
But according to Bob Woodward's new book, President Bush apparently
never learned that axiom.
And now, Congress must demand answers.
Woodward alleges that in July 2002, the President secretly began to
finance the war in Iraq with no authorization from Congress.
He says $700 million was siphoned from operations against al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan and into planning an Iraq invasion.
The President allegedly took the money from one of the two
supplemental spending bills passed after September 11, and left
lawmakers "totally in the dark."
If true, the President violated the spirit of the Constitution, which
vests the power of the purse with Congress.
But his most serious transgression would not be constitutional.
As White House spokesman Scott McClellan accurately noted, the
President was granted "broad discretion" to spend these emergency
funds.
The problem is that that "broad discretion" was not a blank check.
The spending bills legally required him to notify Congress before
diverting money.
As the post-9-11 emergency spending bill mandates, the President is
required to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of
the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds.
But that never happened, according to Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), who, as
chairman of the Appropriations Committee at the time, would have been
informed.
He said "the White House provided no consultations" about moving funds
into Iraq operations.
While the Administration submitted reports to Congress, it used
deliberately vague language, saying only that it was increasing
"situational awareness" and "worldwide posture" -- but never
mentioning Iraq.
The August 2002 spending bill is the same: while it afforded the
Administration wide latitude, it required the President to consult
with Congress and give 15 days notice before moving any money.
But as one top Democrat reported, "there was no consultation" and
there is no evidence that Congress was notified.
The Administration responded to Woodward's charge with a variety of
stories.
McClellan did not deny that money was moved, but claimed "Congress was
kept fully informed of all expenditures."
He provided no proof.
That same day before the Senate, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz also refused to deny funds had been diverted, but tried to
absolve the Administration by claiming "No funds were made available
that had Iraq as the only objective."
Again, no definitive proof.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that while she had no
details about the $700 million, circumventing Congress was acceptable
because resources were only moved "within the entire region" of Asia
and the Mideast.
But while technically the Pentagon considers Afghanistan and Iraq the
same region, the military objectives were far different.
Rice then promised that "resources were not taken from Afghanistan" --
a point contradicted by the redeployment of special forces from
Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002.
These responses are all similar:
They do not deny that at least some money was diverted, and they do
not provide any proof that the President fulfilled his legal
obligations to inform Congress.
Lawmakers now face an important choice:
They can either investigate the matter or abdicate their
responsibilities.
By choosing the latter, however, they will set a frightening precedent
that would allow all future Administrations to begin funding major
military engagements without congressional consent.
Such a capitulation would violate a proud democratic tradition and
effectively remove the public from decisions of war and peace.
At a time when our soldiers are bravely fighting for freedom and
democracy abroad, the American people deserves some of that same
courage from Congress here at home.
_____________________________________________________________
Shades of Iran-Contra.
Harry
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
