535 generals on Capitol Hill

The intrigue on Capitol Hill is succinctly summed up by White House spokeswoman Dana Perino when she said the president respects the role of Congress — and Congress should respect his.

"I think the founders of our nation had great foresight in realizing that it would be better to have one commander in chief managing a war, rather than 535 generals on Capitol Hill trying to do the same thing," she said. "They're mandating failure here."

Future presidents will find themselves hemmed in if this bill becomes predecent, i.e. 535 generals on Capitol Hill.

Senate OKs war bill with Iraq timeline

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Write

Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.

In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $123 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

The vote came shortly after Bush invited all House Republicans to the White House to appear with him in a sort of pep rally to bolster his position in the continuing war policy fight.

"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded," Bush said, surrounded by Republicans on the North Portico, "and we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders."

"We expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money," he said.

The Senate vote marked its boldest challenge yet to the administration's handling of a war, now in its fifth year, that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops and more than $350 billion.

"We have fulfilled our constitutional responsibilities," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., told reporters shortly after the vote.

If Bush "doesn't sign the bill, it's his responsibility," Reid added.

In a show of support for the president, most Republicans opposed the measure, unwilling to back a troop withdrawal schedule despite the conflict's widespread unpopularity.

"Surely this will embolden the enemy and it will not help our troops in any way," said Sen. Richard Shelby (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala.

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that setting timelines for withdrawal would hamper U.S. commanders in Iraq, he said Thursday that the debate on Capitol Hill has "been helpful in bringing pressure to bear" on the Iraqi government. He said it has made it clear to the Iraqis that "there is a very real limit to Americans' patience."

Gates also said he was disturbed to hear one of his military officers say it will be fall before they have a good idea how well the latest Baghdad campaign is going. He said he hopes that Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, will be able to make that evaluation by summer.

Forty-eight Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont were joined by two Republicans, Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska and Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, in voting for the measure. Opposed were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record).

Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wy., and Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record), D-S.D., did not vote.

The House, also run by Democrats, narrowly passed similar legislation last week. Party leaders seem determined that the final bill negotiated between the two chambers will demand some sort of timetable for winding down the war — setting them on course for a veto showdown with the president.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president respects the role of Congress — and Congress should respect his.

"I think the founders of our nation had great foresight in realizing that it would be better to have one commander in chief managing a war, rather than 535 generals on Capitol Hill trying to do the same thing," she said. "They're mandating failure here."

The legislation represents the Senate's first, bold challenge of Bush's war policies since Democrats took control of Congress in January. With Senate rules allowing the minority party to insist on 60 votes to pass any bill and Democrats holding only a narrow majority, Reid previously had been unable to push through resolutions critical of the war.

This latest proposal was able to get through because Republicans said they didn't want to block an appropriations bill needed for the war.

"I think the sooner we can get this bill ... down to the president for veto, we can get serious about passing a bill that will get money to the troops," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky.

Democrats acknowledge they do not have enough support in Congress to override Bush's veto, but say they will continue to ratchet up the pressure until he changes course.

The looming showdown was reminiscent of the GOP-led fight with President Clinton over the 1996 budget, which caused a partial government shutdown that lasted 27 days. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., the House speaker at the time, eventually relented but claimed victory because the bill represented a substantial savings over the previous year's spending.

Bush said the money is needed by mid-April or else the troops will begin to run out of money, but some Democrats say the real deadline is probably closer to June.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Defense Appropriations Committee Thursday that a delay in funding would have a chain reaction that could keep units in Iraq longer than planned.

If the bill is not passed by May 15, he said the Army will have to cut back on reserve training and equipment repairs, and possibly delay the formation of other Army units needed to relieve those deployed.

Shortly before the final vote, the Senate agreed 98-0 to add $1.5 billion for mine-resistant vehicles for Marines, and 93-0 to aid a program to track down convicted sex offenders.

Members also agreed 96-1 to prohibit funds in the bill to be used for spinach farmers. The vote was orchestrated by Republicans to target some of the extra spending added to the bill by Democrats; while the Senate bill didn't include any funding for spinach growers, the House measure contained $25 million.

Mediocrity and Usurpation of Duty of Executive Branch

Three months after gaining control the Democrats are still trying to flex their muscles that has atrophied for reasons of mediocrity. They are vainly trying to show the people who elected them some kind of statesmanship and good governance but all they can come up with is theatre performance. Now they are attempting to micromanage the Iraq efforts by issuing the timeline for withdrawal. Such attempts are shortsighted and virtual usurpation of the duties of the executive branch.

Senate signals support for Iraq timeline

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

The Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March, triggering an instant veto threat from the White House in a deepening dispute between Congress and commander in chief. Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed, 50-48, largely along party lines.

The vote marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops. It came days after the House approved a binding withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008.

After weeks of setbacks on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said the moment was at hand to "send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war."

But Republicans — and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), an independent Democrat — argued otherwise.

John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a presidential hopeful, said, "we are starting to turn things around" in the Iraq war, and added that a timeline for withdrawal would encourage terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

Bush had previously said he would veto any bill that he deemed an attempt to micromanage the war, and the White House freshened the threat a few hours before the vote — and again afterward. "The president is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law," it said.

Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders made a change that persuaded Nebraska's Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) to swing behind the measure.

Additionally, Sens. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska and Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, vocal critics of the war, sided with the Democrats, assuring them of the majority they needed to turn back a challenge led by Sen. Thad Cochran (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss.

The debate came on legislation that provides $122 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as domestic priorities such relief to hurricane victims and payments to farmers. Final passage is expected Wednesday or Thursday.

Separately, supporters of an increase in the minimum wage readied an effort to attach the measure to the spending bill, along with companion tax cuts that Republicans have demanded. The House and Senate have passed different versions of the bill but have yet to reach a compromise.

The House has already passed legislation requiring troops to be withdrawn by Sept. 1, 2008. The Senate vote assured that the Democratic-controlled Congress would send Bush legislation later this spring that calls for a change in war policy. A veto is a certainty, presuming the president follows through.

That would put the onus back on the Democrats, who would have to decide how long they wanted to extend the test of wills in the face of what are likely to be increasingly urgent statements from the administration that the money is needed for troops in the war zone.

"I hope he will work with us so we can come up with something agreeable for both" sides, Reid said at a post-vote news conference. "But I'm not anxious to strip anything out of the bill."

As drafted, the legislation called for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a non-binding goal that calls for the combat troops to be gone within a year.

The measure also includes a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly — provisions designed to attract support from Nelson and Sen. Mark Pryor (news, bio, voting record) of Arkansas.

Despite the change, Pryor voted to delete the timeline.

The vote was a critical test for Reid and the new Democratic majority in the Senate nearly three months after they took power. Despite several attempts, they had yet to win approval for any legislation challenging Bush's policies.

Republicans prevented debate over the winter on non-binding measures critical of Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops. That led to the 50-48 vote derailing a bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days but set only a non-binding target of March 31, 2008, for the departure of the final combat forces.

Some Democrats said they would support the non-binding timetable even though they wanted more. "I want a deadline not only for commencing the withdrawal of our forces but also completing it rather than a target date," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt.

"This provision represents a 90-degree change of course from the president's policy of escalation in the middle of a civil war," he said, "I'm confident once the withdrawal of our troops begins, there will be no turning back."

Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war insurgent, depicted the vote as a turning point. He said the effect of the timeline would be to "snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq."

Republicans spoke in similar terms.

"Wars cannot be run from these hallowed and comfortable and sanctified chambers 10,000 miles away from the war zone," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. "How about allowing the officers, the men and the commanders in the field who are engaged daily, risking their lives to bring peace and security to Iraq, determine when and how we can best turn over to the Iraqi security forces the critical job, the critical job of assuring security."

Rule of Law - Checks and Balances

   The ACLU saw it fit to  file lawsuit against Rumsfeld and the judge saw it fit too to dismiss such lawsuit. It goes to show that when the rule of law is unbridled, justice prevails – US style, that is.  Other countries are hamstrung by US style of justice, and therefore become banana republics or  dictatorships.

 

Judge dismisses lawsuit against Rumsfeld

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 59 minutes ago

Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cannot be tried on allegations of torture in overseas military prisons, a federal judge said Tuesday in a case he described as "lamentable."

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan threw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Rumsfeld cannot be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job.

The lawsuit contends the prisoners were beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First had argued that Rumsfeld and top military officials disregarded warnings about the abuse and authorized the use of illegal interrogation tactics that violated the constitutional and human rights of prisoners.

"This is a lamentable case," Hogan began his 58-page opinion.

No matter how appealing it might seem to use the courts to correct allegations of severe abuses of power, Hogan wrote, government officials are immune from such lawsuits. Additionally, foreigners held overseas are not normally afforded U.S. constitutional rights.

"Despite the horrifying torture allegations," Hogan said, he could find no case law supporting the lawsuit, which he previously had described as unprecedented.

Allowing the case to go forward, Hogan said in December, might subject government officials to all sorts of political lawsuits. Even Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered.

"There is no getting around the fact that authorizing monetary damages remedies against military officials engaged in an active war would invite enemies to use our own federal courts to obstruct the Armed Forces' ability to act decisively and without hesitation," Hogan wrote Tuesday.

Had the Rumsfeld lawsuit been allowed to go forward, attorneys for the ACLU might have been able to force the Pentagon to disclose what officials knew about abuses at prisons such as Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and what was done to stop it.

Hogan also dismissed the charges against other officials named in the lawsuit: retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, former Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski and Col. Thomas M. Pappas.

Karpinski, whose Army Reserve unit was in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison, was demoted and is the highest-ranking officer punished in the scandal. Sanchez, who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq, retired from the Army and said his career was a casualty of the prison scandal.

The ACLU and Justice Department had no immediate response to the ruling.