Share this story
Close X
Switch to Desktop Site

How Congress might rein in US war policy

About these ads

The confrontation between Congress and the White House over Iraq is developing into perhaps the most heated confrontation since Vietnam over one of the most basic aspects of the US Constitution – its allocation of the power to make war.

In history, Congress often has fallen short of its goals when it attempts to rein in or change the executive branch's conduct of war. Presidents have many ways of forging ahead despite political and legislative resistance.

But in some instances, lawmakers have played a pivotal role in ending US involvement. Their power to raise questions, via hearings and investigations, can be almost as important as their ability to cut off funds.

In part, that's what happened with Vietnam, though Congress today is not as roiled as it was in the late 1960s and early '70s. "We're not there yet," says Julian Zelizer, a Boston University historian and expert on Congress and Southeast Asia.

If nothing else, the words now being tossed back and forth over Iraq in Washington are becoming increasingly impassioned. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lambasted members of Congress who back legislative attempts to place restrictions on what President Bush can do in Iraq.

"When members of Congress pursue an antiwar strategy that's been called 'slow-bleed,' they're not supporting the troops. They are undermining them," said Vice President Cheney.

In reply, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada said in a statement that America is less safe today because of the war. Mr. Bush "must change course, and it's time for the Senate to demand that he do it," the senator said.


Page:   1   |   2   |   3

Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.