It sounds mixed, but positive. I'm waiting for the grilling he'll get after he's done, but he strikes me as honest, on the level of a pure gut instinct.
It still sounds like the majority of the problems stem from squabbling political groups. And I wonder how long we should support their power grabs, but we seem to be doing a lot of good against foreign insurgents.
Edit: Ambassador Crocker is up right now.
Edti2: Testimony is over, we're on to the questioning. CNN is doing an overview of the facts in the General's testimony. The facts look to be right, but even the GAO is challenging a couple of his assertions based on the numbers.
posted
I turned off CNN and turned on C-SPAN after Crocker's testimony ended.
Some interesting questions and answers, but I didn't get to watch it all. I'm hoping for a transcript.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Obnoxious Democratic Congressman: "If the Congress cut off all funding for any military expeditions in Iraq, and then the President ordered you to mount an expensive campaign, what would you do."
General: "I don't mean to belittle your question sir, but frankly, the first thing I would do is contact my Lawyer."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would probably be the outcome, since it would be a blatantly unlawful order. Congress has absolute power of the purse.
edit: but he's not saying that, he's saying he'd ask a legal expert what the legal response(s) in that situation is(are).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily for the lawyer, it isn't a hard question. Congress has the power of the purse. The President's order would be unequivocally unlawful, and thus not one the general is sworn to obey.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If congress cut funding in Iraq to $0 across the board in an instant there would be hell to pay as far as I am concerened.
It's a stupid question because the military already has funds from the previous budget and the current budget that was approved just a few months ago. The best the congress could do would be to pass a law reconsidering that budget, (which would be political suicide) or pass a law that says zero money at the start of next year (also political suicide). Were that to actually happen, the military would just pull out, and the scenario as asked by that congressman would never materialize.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they don't have the power to do it.
And you are misunderstanding how the federal budget works, and how federal funding laws work.
The federal budget is a guideline. It does not fund anything. Nothing that is in the federal budget is funded until a funding bill is passed.
And Congress's power in federal funding laws is absolute. If they put in the law that all funding was cut off from the instance of the bill's passage, it would all be cut off from that moment. As you note, that would not be a good idea, but that does not mean they cannot do it. Congress always has the power to undo its own previous actions, unless prevented by a Constitutional amendment.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't misunderstand federal budgets fugu. When congress approves the budget as setup by the executive branch, something that is usually submitted right after the State of the Union address, congress considers the budget. If they approve the budget (it's usually modified in many places before passing) they are basically saying, "The money will be here based on what the budget specifies." Approving a budget and then turning around and not voting for funding short of some sort of extenuating circumstances would be very irresponsible.
Sure congress has the power to do it, just like the president has the power to veto a bill from congress that is absolutely essential, and perfect in every respect as well as being designed to save the union. The question that congressman was asking was basically, "Are you beholden to the country or to the president first and for most?" It's a stupid question.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Luckily for the lawyer, it isn't a hard question. Congress has the power of the purse. The President's order would be unequivocally unlawful, and thus not one the general is sworn to obey.
That's not entirely clear at all, depending on who is authorizing what. The order to send troops in or maintain them would not be illegal. What would specifically be illegal is the disbursement of funds from the treasury (including the disbursement of funds that have not yet been deposited in the treasury, which was the precise illegal act in Iran-Contra before the cover-up). It is not illegal to take an action that would require someone else to disburse funds.
The above assumes that the content of the law is simply revoking the funding authorization.
It should also be noted that Congress's choice is to wait for the authorization to expire (it lasts at most 2 years), get the President to agree, or get 2/3 of each house to agree.
It was a stupid question in the context it was asked, but it's not a stupid issue to be considering as part of the ongoing discussion.
Edit: to be clear, SOMEONE would be breaking the law. It's just not clear it would be Patreous.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really don't understand it. What goes into the approved budget is routinely different from what is actually funded. This happens all the time (to varying degrees in different areas, in practice).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, that's very true. I suspect the order would ultimately still be considered illegal, but Petraeus could try to carry it out and be unable to (I hope his lawyer would suggest something like trying to put in an order for supplies that would be needed, followed by reporting to the President that he was unable to secure necessary supplies due to lack of funds).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You really don't understand it. What goes into the approved budget is routinely different from what is actually funded. This happens all the time (to varying degrees in different areas, in practice).
Um...I really do understand it? You're wording on the other hand is alittle confusing. What actually goes into the approved budget is routinely different from what is actually funded?
If it does not go in it was not ACTUALLY funded was it? I already understand that what is approved on paper is often different then what ACTUALLY goes in. But we're talking about a budget that has already been approved just a few months ago and the congress suddenly cutting all funding to operations in Iraq.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Ah, that's very true. I suspect the order would ultimately still be considered illegal, but Petraeus could try to carry it out and be unable to (I hope his lawyer would suggest something like trying to put in an order for supplies that would be needed, followed by reporting to the President that he was unable to secure necessary supplies due to lack of funds).
It's definitely a law-geeky answer.
To get more nit-picky, it would depend on what Congress's actual act was.
Suppose congress repeals the last Iraq appropriation bill. It would be illegal to spend money under the relevant LOAs (lines of accounting). However, there are likely other LOAs that have loose enough spending parameters that it might be lawful to spend them on forces in Iraq.
If Congress passed a statute making it unlawful to spend money on military forces stationed in Iraq, the above would not apply.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you don't understand it, as your post makes even more clear.
The President proposes a budget, which is not a law and specifies various amounts should be spent on various things.
The Congress negotiates until they pass a budget, which could bear no resemblance to the President's budgets, specifying various amounts should be spent on various things. This does not actually secure any funding.
Then there are authorizations bills, which actually say "well, you can spend money on that".
Then there are the appropriation bills, which are what actually spend the money.
What goes into the budget is sometimes not authorized, and sometimes things are authorized that are not in the budget.
Not everything that is authorized is appropriated (though afaik, nothing can be appropriated without being authorized, though I think that can happen in a single bill).
So whatever the federal budget is, there are things in it that are never spent, and things spent that are not in it. This happens all the time. It is in no way an unusual occurrence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I was presuming the stronger form of the bill. I am routinely annoyed at Congress's unwillingness to use the power of the purse (with everyone except the States). Not in this case; I don't think cutting off funding for Iraq is the correct course of action.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep saying I don't understand it, and then you say things I already know.
Look I understand that the actual appropriation of funds is a seperate act then approving the budget. I never said it was otherwise I merely said that when congress approves of the budget they are rolling the ball in the direction appropriating the funds. Yes small to moderate changes in what is actually paid for do take place. Refusing to pay any money for our operations in Iraq would not be a small to moderate change. Simply not paying a dollar more for a major campaign that has soaked up billions of dollars is not just one of those things that was in the budget but was never paid for.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The best the congress could do would be to pass a law reconsidering that budget, (which would be political suicide) or pass a law that says zero money at the start of next year (also political suicide).
This statement is what I'm objecting to.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The best the congress could do would be to pass a law reconsidering that budget, (which would be political suicide) or pass a law that says zero money at the start of next year (also political suicide).
This statement is what I'm objecting to.
Are you arguing that congress could vote to appropriate the funds and then institute a cease and desist order on spending the money?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The federal budget is not a vote to appropriate funds.
Agreed, when I orginally said "approved the budget" I meant having approved the budget and actually agreed to pay the funds. I know I did not actually say that but I was implying it.
Maybe I am wrong but I was under the impression that if Congress has already alotted the funds in the past they can't just suddenly withdraw all the money and say, "Sorry folks find your own ticket home." I was under the impression they could only refuse to grant further funding not that they could simply stop the train in its tracks.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are wrong. Congress always has the power to undo previous acts of Congress, unless prevented by an amendment to the Constitution.
They can't do the impossible, like take back money already spent, of course (well, in certain circumstances they could take a stab at it, but we can assume they can't for the purposes of this discussion). But they can prevent any further spending from past appropriations all they want.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are wrong. Congress always has the power to undo previous acts of Congress, unless prevented by an amendment to the Constitution.
Is there some sort of, "In writing, state that BlackBlade is wrong quota" you need to fill?
Also, ammendments are not the only thing that could prevent that. The original unammended passages in the constitution could perhaps also prevent such an act from taking place.
quote:They can't do the impossible, like take back money already spent, of course (well, in certain circumstances they could take a stab at it, but we can assume they can't for the purposes of this discussion). But they can prevent any further spending from past appropriations all they want.
Now that you say it like that I am inclined to agree with you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, they could, in the abstract. In the abstract, Congress wouldn't necessarily have the power of the purse.
However, with our specific, concrete Constitution, as intepreted by the Supreme Court, they do have the power of the purse, and they do have the power to cut off further spending of appropriated money.
And its hard to resist when you say things like "maybe I am wrong" Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant more, "the constitution is not just a collection of ammedments." Not that congress could in some abstract way be argued to not have the power of the purse, indeed it is basically spelled out in the constitution that they do.
quote:And its hard to resist when you say things like "maybe I am wrong"
Would you prefer an absolute refusal to my admitting to be wrong? I'm sure I could start arguing over diction and making every arguement a long drawn out battle from ideas to semantics. Or I could simply stop talking when its obvious I am wrong, would that give you more satisfaction? Obviously not, but it is a temptation
Not that you are actually doing this, but it usually irks me when somebody tries to gracefully admit defeat or offer a truce and the opposition tries to turn a retreat into a route.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was another round of testimony today in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee.
I was a little surprised they worked Petreaus and Crocker so hard. They only got like a 10 minute break to wolf down a sandwich before launching back into more of it. I didn't get to watch as much today, I had to work, but I caught some of the recap on NPR. Obama made a nice soundbyte on the issue. I'm continually struck by how statesmanlike he sounds whenever he talks. He has a charisma and authority in his voice that I haven't heard in awhile from a speechmaker, reminds me of Kennedy.
Anyway, there was a lot of disputing of the testimony behind the scenes. Many are saying that the peace he's claiming in al Anbar is a bit of a sham, since we're paying off the tribesman, many of whom are war criminals that only months before were killing in sectarian violence, and we've given them legitimacy by promising them a spot and a paycheck in the Iraqi police force, and are giving them weapons and cash payments. Further, one journalist I was listening to said they passed a lot of makeshift villages full of refugees that those same militants had created by driving them out of areas through ethnic cleansing basically, the kind that radically changed the makeup of Baghdad. So it may be true that overall violence, while still high, is dropping, but what future problems are we creating?
Petreaus dodged a lot of questions from the committee on whether or not Iraq should be the central front in the war, saying he wasn't in charge of that, and I think Crocker did a mildly passable job of trying to paint a MUCH rosier picture than reality on the political situation there.
I think the picture we're coming up with of Iraq is that the military mission IS working, maybe not spectacularly, but it's working, certainly better than what was happening last December. But the political mission is bombing, hard. The Maliki government isn't capable of bringing the disparate groups together, and they are stymied on passing the major legislation and reforms necessary to coming to a reconcilliation.
I think our focus should be handing off the security situation to the Iraqi army and then leaving. We can't leave precipitously, it would throw any progress made over the past years moot, but we can't make our mission a politically stabl Iraq, it's not fair or realistic, and frankly I don't think it's necessary. According to Petreaus, more and more of Iraq is already being patrolled without the US, and the rate of handing it off might be sped up over the next year. But I think we should change the parameters of Iraqi involvement in missions. Right now in many places it wouldn't matter if they were able, they aren't allowed to act independently of US forces. We should be aggressively working to train them and then guide them on missions, not lead them. Once they have the capacity to police the cities themselves, I think we should move back, focus more on Afghanistan, and help them watch the borders to make sure Syria and Iran are staying out.
If it takes two more years to get ourselves mostly out of there, so be it. But if we're stuck with Bush's plan to stay until there is a political solution, we might be there forever. I think we know now that there really isn't a guarantee that there will EVER be a satisfactory solution. I don't really agree that we should pull out now, but I think it's time to start start strongarming the Iraqi government. Urging them to do stuff isn't working, I think we have to really twist their arms and get changes made. Waiting around for them to fix their own problems while they suck us dry of resources isn't good for US security.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MSNBC is reporting that the pentagon's internal reports on the security situation in Iraq differ greatly from Petraeus' salesmany report.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Petraeus is in kind of a bad spot. He may be a relatively honest person, but it isn't exactly in his best interests to say, "Yes, the mission I'm leading is aimed towards unachievable goals, any progress we may make is likely to be temporary, and the intervention of any of a number of Iraq's neighbors could likely throw the whole deck of cards into the air again in the span of weeks." Quite aside from what that would do to his career, he'd be the obvious fall guy. That can't help but color one's commentary.
I only heard snatches of the testimony today; frankly, what I heard of the questioning seemed like a dog-and-pony show. A lot of one side fawning and pitching softballs, a lot of the other glowering and spitting.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
