The Right of Refusal
So Bush delivered his progress report on the “surge” in Iraq. He was too optimistic by half, suggesting that progress is half-complete: by his accounting, eight of the eighteen objectives have been met (read: if you squint, you can pretend what we have is what we had in mind when we set the objectives), two have had debatable success (read: failure), and eight remain unfulfilled (read: no amount of spin can make this look good). This, in itself, is no proof of failure. As the president pointed out, the final report is due in September, and judging progress before the agreed date to judge progress would be unfair. This will not stop anyone.
I took particular note of his explicit statement that “Congress has the right to fund” the ongoing war in Iraq. Conspicuously, he did not mention that Congress has the constitutional authority not to fund it, as well (Article I, Section 9, item g.), but the tacit recognition, at least, was there.
As so often happens, the reporters in the subsequent round of questions missed a big opportunity by asking the questions they had prepared, instead of addressing this statement. The $64,000-dollar question was:
“You just stated that Congress has the right to fund the ongoing war in Iraq. Presumably, you recognize their right not to do so as well. If Congress should decide not to continue funding the war to a level you consider necessary for its successful prosecution, what policy will you adopt towards our involvement in Iraq. Please note, Mr. President, that the question is not whether Congress should continue funding operations in Iraq; no doubt you feel they should, and must. The question is what you will do if, despite your insistence, they choose not to.”
The value of this question is twofold. Presuming the president answered the question at all, it would force him to put his cards on the table, one way or another. He could admit, after all previous refusals to a condition that could compel him to withdraw. He could deny Congress the legal ability to refuse. He could indicate a willingness to ignore the constitution and draw funds from the treasury without the consent of law. He could indicate a willingness to leave troops there without sufficient support. None of these options would be pleasant for the president, but it’s well past time for the no-win situation he has created in Iraq to become a no-win situation for himself, personally, and not just for the US generally, or for Iraq, or for whichever president is left to clean up his mess.
The other value of the question is that the answer would also light a fire under Congress, forcing them to lay their cards on the table, one way or another. An answer would either supply Congress with conditions to end the war, if they’ve got the guts, or unequivocal grounds for impeachment and removal from office of the president. If justice is to be done, Congress has to start fighting back. And we, the voters, need to hold them accountable for their reaction to the Bush agenda. We’ve already blown our chance to hold Bush himself accountable. Now we must rely on our elected officials, afraid of the next elections, to do it for us.