The U.S. House and Senate are showing some courage:
Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation.
New, President Bush faces a choice: 1.) Sign the bill and receive $122 billion in funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while agreeing to withdraw troops by March 31, 2008 (in the Senate version of the bill) or five months later (in the House version), or 2.) Veto the bill and risk not receiving additional funds for the conflict.
The Senate passed the bill 50–48 because of Republican Chuck Hagle’s vote in favor. I’m glad he is putting good policy above political — and partisan — pressure. I’d rather the United States leave Iraq soon and save untold billions of dollars, but this compromise is probably the best that can be achieved right now.
Those who still support the war (usually for reasons ranging from partisan loyalty to a refusal to admit failure) are claiming that such bills are misguided — if not unconstitutional – because the executive branch has the sole authority to determine military policy in times of war.
This argument, however, is absurd. The United States is neither a kingdom nor a dictatorship. The United States is run by the people. And Congress, not the president, represents the people. The legislative branch forms policy through law, and the executive carries out that policy. Congress has the right to act as it sees fit in any circumstance — even it means overruling the president through veto overrides or refusing to fund specific initiatives.
