Glenn Greenwald catches Republican politicians flip-flopping on the scope of Congressonal war powers. When Clinton was bogged down in Somalia, they endorsed expansive Congressional war powers. Now that Bush is bogged down in Iraq, they're emphasizing Presidential power. But so what? Catching politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths is like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.
Virtually all politicians are shameless flip-floppers; indeed, it seems to be a bona fide job qualification. Consider how Democrats flip-flopped on filibusters of judicial nominations, to take but one example. (See also this list.) Moreover, as John Yoo pointed out in the Pennsylvania Law Review, Bill Clinton took a view of Presidential War Powers nearly as expansive as that of George Bush:
Although on several occasions Congress refused to authorize the use of force, President Clinton argued that he had the sole constitutional power as commander-in-chief to send American servicemen and women into harm's way. While he often signaled that he would welcome congressional support, he also made clear that he would implement his military plans without it. President Clinton further refused to acknowledge that the War Powers Resolution bound his discretion to act. The Clinton administration has rendered the War Powers Resolution a dead letter.
So let's start with the assumption that most politicians on both sides of the aisle will say anything that advances their cause of the moment, without regard to whether it's consistent with positions they've taken earlier. Indeed, most can do so with out so much as a red face.
The only question that really matters is what powers, if any, Congress has to limit the scope of a President's conduct of war. My friend Georgetown University Professor Anthony Arend is a leading expert on national security law. He's blogged that:
... courts have repeatedly said, to quote Justice Jackson in the Steel Seizure Case, that the President "has no monopoly of 'war powers,' '"
He's told the press that:
Congress may lack the power to "micromanage an ongoing conflict" with detailed mandates for deploying forces. However, Arend told TNS, lawmakers could rein in war spending so that the White House "would have no choice but to reduce troops in accordance with that funding reduction."
I take it that Arend would agree with Ann Coulter's observation that:
If Congress doesn't like it, the Constitution gives it two choices: It can cut off funding, or it can impeach the president. Congress controls the purse – it doesn't wage war.
The Republican Congressmen who thought Congress could cut off funding for Clinton's Somalia misadventures were right back then. So are the Democratic (and some Republican, by the way) lawmakers who think they can cut off funding for Bush's Iraqi misadventures.
