1995 GOP Memo To Clinton Admin: Congress MUST Authorize War Or NO Funds

[kpete]

September 28, 1995 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee memo.
The memo pertains to the Clinton Administration plan to deploy troops to Bosnia.

The decision to send U.S. troops to any region warrants Congressional scrutiny.


excerpts from memo:
http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92895Bosnia.pdf

Congress' Role

The Clinton Administration has sent U.S. troops to Haiti, and expanded the mission of
U.S. troops in Somalia, without seeking or receiving authorization from Congress. In October
1993, following the death of 18 U.S. Army Rangers in Somalia, the Senate passed an
amendment to the FY 1994 DoD Appropriations bill, sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd, that
cut off funds for a continued U.S. military presence in Somalia beyond March 31, 1994.

Regarding Bosnia, during consideration of that same bill, the Senate passed a sense of
Congress amendment that no funds should be made available to deploy U.S. armed forces to
participate in the implementation of a peace settlement in Bosnia unless previously authorized
by Congress. Another provision on the same bill opposed U.S. participation in any
peacekeeping or peace-enforcing operations unless "the President initiates consultations with
the bipartisan leadership of Congress" (Senator Robert Dole, Congressional Record, 9/26/95,
p. S14271).

President Clinton has not yet stated whether Congressional authorization will be
sought before U.S. troops are deployed to Bosnia. On September 27, 1995, when asked if the
Administration needed Congress' approval, Secretary of State Warren Christopher replied,
"Yes, we want Congress's approval. We'll consult very closely with them.... Yes, we do
(need Congress' approval). They certainly will have to provide the money" (NBC, Today
Show, 9/27/951.

And the Administration has yet to even consult with Congress on the components of
the peace agreement, let alone on the plan that is currently being devised for sending U.S.
ground forces to Bosnia. Secretary Christopher defended the lack of communication with
Congress in this way: "But let's not get the cart before the horse. Let's get a peace
agreement and then we'll worry about the implementation" (NBC, Today Show, 9/27/95).

Secretary Christopher's comments skirt over an important point: in trying to conclude
a peace agreement, the Administration could be making promises Congress may be unwilling
to support. By following such a course, the Administration will be handing Congress a fait
accompli, rendering irrelevant any advice Congress could offer. Worse yet, the
Administration then would be in a position to defend its plan as is by charging that any
proposed changes to accommodate Congressional concerns would lead to an unraveling of the
peace accord.

via:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/16/45132/1563

[acmavm]

1. Well, if that's what they said then...

let's make sure that's what happens now as well.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Mmmmmmmmm, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

:sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

[NewJeffCT]

7. GOP hypocrisy? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

ok, not really.

Another one to add to the list (the Progress Report from the Center for American Progress had some great precedents in their Jan. 9, 2007 email)

>>>>
Can Congress do anything about it? Some have claimed that anything other symbolic action is unconstitutional. That's false. A wide range of legal experts agree there are a range of legal options available to Congress to stop, or place conditions on, any escalation in the war in Iraq. For example, John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer and one of the staunchest defenders of executive power, noted that "the power of Congress over the budget was absolute, to such an extent that lawmakers could end the war altogether if they chose." On the other side of the political spectrum, Georgetown University Law Professor Marty Lederman agrees. A new report from the Center for American Progress illustrates that Congress has acted repeatedly over the last 35 years to ensure the conduct of military action would "strengthen American national security and reflect the concerns and will of the American people." Congress has passed bills, enacted into law, that capped the size of military deployments, prohibited funding for existing or prospective deployment, and placed limits and conditions on the timing and nature of deployments.

CAPPING TROOP LEVELS: Congress has historically exercised authority to cap U.S. troop levels in foreign conflicts. In 1974, the Foreign Assistance Act "established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within 6 months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year." In 1983, the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act "required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon." In 1984, the Defense Authorization Act "capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400." All of this legislation was enacted into law.

RESTRICTING FUNDING: Congress has also restricted funding for certain military operations for U.S. troops. In 1970, the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law, "prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces." In 1982, the Defense Appropriation Act "prohibited covert military assistance for Nicaragua." In 1994, Congress restricted the use of funds "for United States military participation to continue Operations Restore Hope in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994."All of these funding restrictions were enacted into law. Read the report for more examples.

CONDITIONING FUNDING: Alternatively, Congress has authorized military action subject to various conditions. In 1991, Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq but conditioned it on the President "certifying first that means other than war would not result in Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions." In 2001, President Bush sought authority to respond to the 9/11 attacks to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Instead, Congress limited the authority to "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned authorized committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks.

[bananarepublican]

24. 'GOP hypocrisy' is one the strongest examples of tautology I've come across! n/t

[bigtree]

3. that's exactly what they said in their floor speeches back then

:kick: & 5th rec

[Lasher]

4. Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

" President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/17/144732/740

[NewJeffCT]

9. That cannot be posted enough

Thanks for posting it.

[stubtoe]

12. Sweet! This needs to be its own OP somewhere.

Nice job and thanks.

[Lasher]

13. Thanks to you and to NewJeffCT for the kind words.

I haul this list out every now and then. I sometimes worry that folks will think, "Oh look, here's that jackass Lasher, posting the same stuff over and over. I hate him." But then again I think that some will benefit from it, having not seen it before.

I'm not looking for glory, having already been famous enough in my lifetime to suit me. But you have inspired me to offer this list as an op in GD. I'm going to do that right now. I've had about a thousand OPs sink like a stone and it really doesn't hurt my feelings when that happens.

Lasher

On edit: Just fer fun, here 'tis: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x229814

[im10ashus]

15. Seriously.

That deserves its own thread. :kick:

[Lasher]

25. You folks were right. It got nine votes.

Thanks for suggesting that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=229814&mesg_id=229814

[Shallah Kali]

17. Excellent quotes. Thank you very much for reminding us

.

[IWantAChange]

20. Kudos - have forwarded to KO and every legislator in my address book.

[The Count]

27. Wow! That last one of W: "Victory means exit strategy?" he was confused even then!

Even when he was pretending to be against war he didn't have the grasp of what victory means.

[Lasher]

28. And take a look at what Lord Vader said in 1991 about invading Baghdad.

Lord Vader thought it was a real stupid idea ot occupy Iraq back in 1991. I guess 911 changed everything.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=219343

[EstimatedProphet]

5. It doesn't matter

The rules only matter when Republicans want them to matter.

[robinlynne]

6. interesting. Hope the dems see this article.

[NewJeffCT]

8. Please forward it to your Congressional Rep and your senators

Even if they are Republics.

[bigluckyfeet]

23. I already did

With a big smile.

[Bandit]

10. Where have you been? Didn't you know 9-11 "Changed Everything"

What was it Jesus said about Hypocrites? Maybe some good right wing "Christian" could recall...

[va4wilderness]

11. Funny how Repub positions change like the wind...

Now a good number of them are just parroting *

In 1998, my rep (Bob Goodlatte(R)) said "The standard that we follow and the standard we teach our children is that no person is above the law, including the president of the United States." http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/05/transcripts/judiciary2.html. And he'd be the first person to defend * if impeachment proceedings began today.

[TheBaldyMan]

14. another case of IOKIYAR

It's OK if you are a Republican.

These hypocrites have no shame.

[im10ashus]

16. Great post!!!

K&R!

:kick:

[Vidar]

18. Good find. Let's trow it back at them.

[keepCAblue]

19. Flip. Flop. n/t

[B Calm]

21. Gee.. cons must not have supported the troops back then, but

now they think they do. You would think the news would run with this right wing hypocrisy...

[JanusAscending]

22. Somebody needs to inform Harry Reed about this!!!

Maybe it will give them some leverage ( or balls for a better term!)

[SpiralHawk]

26. "Of course we are hypocrites. What did you expect?" - republicon cronies

"After all, we are following the lead of a Connecticut yankee preppy cheerleader who went AWOL to snort cocaine, and then let a male prostitute (Jeff Gannon) have free access* to the White House."

- Cabal of corrupt republicon cronies


* According to official Secret Service records, the male prostitute visited George AWOL Bush's White House over 200 times, with several apparent overnights. Google the facts, Jack.