Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 05/03/2006 View Tue 05/02/2006 View Mon 05/01/2006 View Sun 04/30/2006 View Sat 04/29/2006 View Fri 04/28/2006 View Thu 04/27/2006
1
2006-05-03 Home Front: Politix
Few Rumsfeld critics suggest possible successor
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dan Darling 2006-05-03 07:14|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Sam Nunns missed the boat about 5 times now. He coulda been a contender.
Posted by 6 2006-05-03 07:41||   2006-05-03 07:41|| Front Page Top

#2 The only time the generals are happy at the Pentagon is when they are not being led by an adult.
Posted by Perfessor 2006-05-03 08:18||   2006-05-03 08:18|| Front Page Top

#3 "consulting with Congress"=="be our lap dog."

No thanks. The scriptures talk about not being able to serve two masters, and they want the secdef to have 100? And that's just the SENATE.
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2006-05-03 09:01|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2006-05-03 09:01|| Front Page Top

#4 Hint: It's not about Rumsfeld. It's about Bush. And unfortunately (for them), even if they impeached Bush the prescribed presidential succession would bring them their worst nightmare, President Cheney. So they're left with Rummy as the whipping boy. Sorry, Don.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-05-03 09:09||   2006-05-03 09:09|| Front Page Top

#5 Hmmmmmmm, "impatience with the legislative branch " since Donny Dear was a congress critter himself, you think this might be due to some first hand experience?
Posted by AlanC">AlanC  2006-05-03 09:24||   2006-05-03 09:24|| Front Page Top

#6 Ptah,

all cabinet members are supposed to consult with congress. Congress provides oversight to the executive.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-05-03 09:26||   2006-05-03 09:26|| Front Page Top

#7 Yes, LH, you're correct, but that doesn't mean that the Congress should get to "run" the war itself. Or just say he doesn't communicate with them, just because they don't like what he's told them before. One of the most dangerous things we could do with our military is allow it to become politicized and directed by either the Executive of the Legislature. I believe that even having the President call the detailed shots day-to-day may be pushing it. When in war, let the Generals and the COs on the ground call the shots.
Posted by BA 2006-05-03 10:30||   2006-05-03 10:30|| Front Page Top

#8 Oops, Executive OR the Legislature...
Posted by BA 2006-05-03 10:31||   2006-05-03 10:31|| Front Page Top

#9 Congress provides oversight to the executive.

I missed that part in the Constitution.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-03 10:33||   2006-05-03 10:33|| Front Page Top

#10 If the opposite of pro is con, then the opposite of Progress is Congress - Mark Twain.
Posted by DarthVader 2006-05-03 10:50||   2006-05-03 10:50|| Front Page Top

#11 "I believe that even having the President call the detailed shots day-to-day may be pushing it."

well then the current president is the man for you. No danger of that under his watch. Its been said that under no previous prez (at least recently) has the president had so little direct contact with the brass, and delegated so completely to the SecDef.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-05-03 13:11||   2006-05-03 13:11|| Front Page Top

#12 "The U.S. Constitution
Although the Constitution grants no formal, express authority to oversee or
investigate the executive or program administration, oversight is implied in Congress’s impressive array of enumerated powers.3 The legislature is authorized to appropriate funds; raise and support armies; provide for and maintain a navy; declare war; provide for organizing and calling forth the national guard; regulate interstate and foreign commerce; establish post offices and post roads; advise and consent on treaties and presidential
nominations (Senate); and impeach (House) and try (Senate) the President, Vice President, and civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Reinforcing these powers is Congress’s broad authority “to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all
other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.”

The authority to oversee derives from these constitutional powers. Congress could
not carry them out reasonably or responsibly without knowing what the executive is
doing; how programs are being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether
officials are obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. The Supreme Court
has legitimated Congress’s investigative power, subject to constitutional safeguards for
civil liberties. In 1927, the Court found that, in investigating the administration of the
Department of Justice, Congress was considering a subject “on which legislation could
be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was
calculated to elicit.”4

Statutes The “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution also allows Congress to enact
laws that mandate oversight by its committees, grant relevant authority to itself and its
support agencies, and impose specific obligations on the executive to report to or consult
with Congress, and even seek its approval for specific actions.
Broad oversight mandates exist for the legislature in several significant statutes. The
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called
for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing
committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their
jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the
Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the General
Accounting Office (GAO). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510)
authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the
application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the
CRS-4
professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional
Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO. The
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program
evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal,
budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Besides these general powers, numerous statutes direct the executive to furnish
information to or consult with Congress. For example, the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62) requires agencies to consult with Congress on their
strategic plans and report annually on performance plans, goals, and results. In fact, more
than 2,000 reports are submitted each year to Congress by federal departments, agencies,
commissions, bureaus, and offices. Inspectors general (IGs), for instance, report their
findings about waste, fraud, and abuse, and their recommendations for corrective action,
periodically to the agency head and Congress. The IGs are also instructed to issue special
reports concerning particularly serious and flagrant problems immediately to the agency
head, who transmits them unaltered to Congress within seven days. Inspectors general
also communicate with Members, committees, and staff of Congress in other ways,
including testimony at hearings, in-person meetings, and written and electronic
communications. The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-531), moreover,
instructs the IGs to identify and describe their agencies’ most serious management and
performance challenges and briefly assess progress in addressing them. This new
requirement is to be part of a larger effort by individual agencies to consolidate their
numerous reports on financial and performance management matters into a single annual
report. The aim is to enhance coordination and efficiency within the agencies; improve
the quality of relevant information; and provide it in a more meaningful and useful format
for Congress, the President, and the public.
In addition to these avenues, Congress creates commissions and establishes task
forces to study and make recommendations for select policy areas that can also involve
examination of executive operations and organizations.
There is a long history behind executive reports to Congress. Indeed, one of the first
laws of the First Congress—the 1789 Act to establish the Treasury Department (1 Stat.
66)—called upon the Secretary and the Treasurer to report directly to Congress on public
expenditures and all accounts. The Secretary was also required “to make report, and give
information to either branch of the legislature ... respecting all matters referred to him by
the Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his office.”
Separate from such reporting obligations, public employees may provide information
to Congress on their own. In the early part of the 20th century, Congress enacted
legislation to overturn a “gag” rule, issued by the President, that prohibited employees
from communicating directly with Congress (5 U.S.C. 7211 (1994)). Other
“whistleblower” statutes, which have been extended specifically to cover personnel in the
intelligence community (P.L. 105-272), guarantee the right of government employees to
petition or furnish information to Congress or a Member.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-05-03 13:16||   2006-05-03 13:16|| Front Page Top

#13 Well, that is unreadable but appears to be a long winded version of "Well yeah, Congress doesn't have oversight power but if it plays it's cards properly and uses its actual powers properly it is tantamount to oversight power." Which is different from saying Congress provides oversight of the Executive. It does not.

It acts as a co-equal branch in a check and balance system that provides for independence but works best with cooperation between the branches.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-03 13:27||   2006-05-03 13:27|| Front Page Top

#14 Short version for the textually challenged

1. No the constitution dont say "the congress shall all cabinet secretaries to testify in order to exercise oversight" but it DOES say that congress shall appropriate the money, pass laws of all kinds, including laws directly impacting the functioning of the executive. Hard to do that without the info from oversight.

2. This was first approved by SCOTUS, way back in 1927. IE before anyone had heard of Justice Warren. Back in the days of "strict constructionist" courts.

3. Statutes have repeatedly reaffirmed this.


I mean cmon. Nobody really denies that Congress has this right. The Repubs exercised it during the Clinton years, and probably will again. Nobody, AFAIK has challenged the constitutionality of the statutes that provide for it. Youre going way out there now.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-05-03 13:57||   2006-05-03 13:57|| Front Page Top

#15 The problem is the definition of words, LH. To the current Congress, especially the donkey half, "oversee" means "control". The Congress passes laws, the Executive implements them. Congress has NO authority to implement laws on its own. The Supreme Court and the justice system is there to ensure that none of the laws Congress passes, nor any of the implementation done by the President (directly, or through appointed officials, i.e., cabinet leaders) infringes upon the basic rights of the citizen.

If all of our government did the job they were supposed to do, our government would be 1/3 its size, spend 10% of what it currently spends, and be less intrusive in everyone's life. Unfortunately, it's the character of the bureaucratic beast to assume greater and greater control at the expense of the "peasants". It takes a revolution every now and then to get things back on an even keel. It's rough on bureaucrats, but they deserve anything they get.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2006-05-03 14:20|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2006-05-03 14:20|| Front Page Top

#16 LH: well then the current president is the man for you. No danger of that under his watch. Its been said that under no previous prez (at least recently) has the president had so little direct contact with the brass, and delegated so completely to the SecDef.

my mother is a retired teacher [life long Dhimmicrat], and she says all kinds of stuff LH. »:-) hi mom!

Congress and war powers:

The Founders considered and rejected [sic Congress meddling , wading into Presidential Powers ] such a contention. The Constitution provides a check to the Executive’s power over the military by vesting in the Legislative Branch the sole authority to raise armies, and to declare war.[103] But that the Constitution vests the war making authority in the President seems beyond dispute.[104] Thus, the Constitution’s own internal framework checks Presidential power while at the same time energizing the Executive. Congress likely has many checks on the program, including defunding the program or aspects entirely, but rewriting the President’s Article II war powers is not one of those options.

Nor is the uniqueness of this war [sic WOT] a substantive charge. That the war on terror might last for years, decades, or even generations does not lessen the Constitutional gravamen set forth in Article II, Section 2....
*********
Congress
..
has authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States
************

Courts of recent ….

As a threshold question, this inquiry demands a determination of whether the United States is in fact at war such that the Executive’s Article II war powers are invoked? The absence of a formal Congressional declaration of war in this instance is unpersuasive. Likely dispositive is the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which declared the President may use “all necessary and appropriate force” against nations, organizations, and persons associated with the September 11th attacks.

[93] The Congressional Authorization clearly intended and authorized use of the American military forces. As Commander in Chief of those forces the President’s war powers are necessarily implicated.

[94] The Supreme Court confirmed this when it reasoned that, “There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the Al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF.[95] The NSA program is directed at Al Qaeda and its members and supporters.[96] Thus, the President’s Article II war powers are involved.

That the War on Terror crosses transnational boundaries including the borders of the United States, or that it implicates citizens of numerous nations including this Nation’s, only serves to heighten the Constitutional powers delegated to the Executive, not to diminish them.

As Alexander Hamilton famously wrote in Federalist No. 74, Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.

[97]The Supreme Court has long paid heed to Article II’s plenary grant of power to the Executive branch in its exclusive delegations.

[98] In addressing the President’s foreign affairs’ powers in 1936 the Court reasoned the President “has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results.”
******************

for instance, FISA is a statute of Congress

NOT a Constitutional article. The President is vested, by Article II, with an inherent authority to conduct war. The Founders took care in making this delegation plenary.

[plenary sic Complete in all respects; unlimited and full]

sorry for the length, chopped way down tho.
Posted by RD 2006-05-03 15:19||   2006-05-03 15:19|| Front Page Top

#17 "This Day In History | Cold War

May 3

1951 Congressional hearings on General MacArthur


The Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, meeting in closed session, begin their hearings into the dismissal of Gen. Douglas MacArthur by President Harry S. Truman. The hearings served as a sounding board for MacArthur and his extremist views on how the Cold War should be fought.

General MacArthur served as commander of U.S. forces during the Korean War until 1951. In late 1950 he made a serious strategic blunder when he dismissed warnings that the People's Republic of China would enter the conflict on the side of its communist ally, North Korea. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops smashed into the American lines in November 1950, driving the U.S. troops back with heavy losses. MacArthur, who had earlier complained about President Truman's handling of the war, now went on an all-out public relations attack against the president and his Cold War policies. In numerous public statements and interviews, General MacArthur criticized Truman's timidity. He also asked for permission to carry out bombing attacks against China and to expand the war. President Truman flatly refused, believing that expanding the war would lead to a possible confrontation with the Soviet Union and World War III. On April 11, 1951, President Truman removed MacArthur from his command. Though Truman clearly did not appreciate MacArthur's approach, the American public liked his tough stance on communism, and he returned home to a hero's welcome.

On May 3, 1951, just a few days after MacArthur's return to the United States, the Senate Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committees began hearings into his dismissal. Partisan politics played a significant role in the hearings, which were instigated by Republican senators eager to discredit the Democratic administration of Harry Truman. MacArthur was the featured witness, and he spoke for more than six hours at the opening session of the hearings. He condemned Truman's Cold War foreign policy, arguing that if the president's "inhibitions" about the war in Korea had been removed the conflict could have been "wound up" without a "very great additional complement of ground troops." He went on to suggest that only through a strategy of complete military destruction of the communist empire could the U.S. hope to win the Cold War. The hearings ended after seven weeks, with no definite conclusions reached about MacArthur's dismissal. However, the general's extremist stance and intemperate statements concerning the need for an expanded conflict against communism during the hearings soon eroded his popularity with the American public. MacArthur attempted to garner the Republican presidential nomination in 1952, but lost to the more moderate campaign of another famed military leader, Dwight D. Eisenhower."


Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-05-03 15:25||   2006-05-03 15:25|| Front Page Top

#18 Correct me if I'm wrong, for I was born in the middle of the Vietnam War and was more obsessed with Sesame Street at the time.

I recall in my history classes that one of the "causes" of the American defeat was that the Executive Branch, specifically the President, micromanaged the war from the Oval Office. If this president isn't doing that, and is letting the Defense Department and the commanders on the ground run the show, isn't that a good thing, LH? (Of course, assuming that the President isn't ignoring it completely, which no one has accused him of doing.)

If the 100 generals in the Senate and 435 generals in the House are trying to micromanage the situation, I don't see how that can work out any better than it did in the late 60's - early 70's.
Posted by Desert Blondie 2006-05-03 15:53|| http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]">[http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]  2006-05-03 15:53|| Front Page Top

#19 LH is sorta right, Congress can cut funding and other things to make executive power hard, but if Congress gets to uppity then the president can start vetoeing everthing that comes out of Congress
Posted by djohn66 2006-05-03 16:08||   2006-05-03 16:08|| Front Page Top

#20 That is what I was getting at, DB. A lot of the current Congress (especially Democrats) are still living in the Vietnam era, where exactly what you said happened. I'm much happier with Dubya stepping back and letting the military call the shots (with some oversight, of course, but not micromanaging). Imagine if Dubya had to approve every single air strike, bombing campaign, ground intrusion, etc. in Iraq. Time is of the essenece, especially in this war, so I'm glad he lets the military handle the important details, and may only ask for briefings after the baddies are capped.
Posted by BA 2006-05-03 16:13||   2006-05-03 16:13|| Front Page Top

#21 Yes, DB. Micromanagement from Washington was recognized as one of the 'lessons learned' from Vietnam. That is one of the reasons why reformers in Congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act. If you dig through it, you'll find that the man in charge on the ground, the Theater Commander, is the one in charge of operations. Now, the President or SecDef can always fire him or can deny requests for more resources, but the execution is his and his alone. He may coordinate, he may inform, he may operate as 'mother may I' if he chooses. Which gets us back to all this whining as to identifying which Theater Commander asked for more troops and was refused? Just ask the critics that one question. They seem to have a very hard time coming up with that specific answer concerning Iraq.
Posted by Ulugum Sholuling5066 2006-05-03 16:26||   2006-05-03 16:26|| Front Page Top

#22 Posted by: Ulugum Sholuling5066

All of that Goldwater-Nichols Combatant Command stuff is well and good and works fine as long as the diplomats steer clear.
Posted by Besoeker 2006-05-03 16:29||   2006-05-03 16:29|| Front Page Top

#23 Such a pity to have such a grand command of facts and not a lick of common sense.
Posted by 2b 2006-05-03 17:14||   2006-05-03 17:14|| Front Page Top

#24 Congressional hearings are theater not oversight.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-03 17:46||   2006-05-03 17:46|| Front Page Top

#25 It is hard for those of us born without common sense, 2b. But I struggle with it daily, and am grateful to those kind strangers who help me get across the street safely. ;-)
Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-03 22:52||   2006-05-03 22:52|| Front Page Top

00:05 JosephMendiola
23:54 Sgt. D.T.
23:52 Whose Creretch1473
23:47 AlmostAnonymous5839
23:42 Whomotle Phiter3901
23:30 Redneck Jim
23:30 Flereng Angaving6956
23:28 Whong Whoting4646
23:16 DMFD
23:16 DMFD
23:10 DMFD
23:08 Frank G
23:07 SPoD
23:06 Fred
23:05 Fordesque
23:01 SPoD
22:58 Danielle
22:55 Frank G
22:54 DMFD
22:54 trailing wife
22:52 trailing wife
22:51 Jort Angairong4948
22:42 trailing wife
22:41 Glenmore









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com