Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, testifying to Congress 4/10/08:

The British model gave the king the absolute power to make war. The American framers repudiated that form of government because their study of history convinced them that executives go to war not for the national interest but to satisfy personal desires of glory, ambition, and fame. The resulting military adventures were disastrous to their countries, both in lives lost and treasures squandered. I have submitted to your subcommittee a number of my recent articles that elaborate on the lessons drawn from that history.

[snip]

Military commitments are not in the hands of admirals and generals but are placed in civilian leaders, including members of Congress. Lawmakers can at any time limit and terminate military commitments. The framers vested the decisive and ultimate powers of war and spending in the legislative branch. American democracy places the sovereign power in the people and entrusts to them the temporary delegation of that power to elected Senators and Representatives.

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/fis041008.htm

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/41756.pdf

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of KY, 5/20/08:

Last week, the Democratic leadership of the House showed us what they thought of that [Iraq supplemental funding] request. They took it up, hollowed it out, and filled the shell with a raft of unrelated domestic spending projects and policy proposals that did not include a dime for the troops in the field. ..snip.. Then they sent this piece of legislation over to the Senate on the eve of Memorial Day and told us to vote for it. The Senate was being asked to vote not on troop funding but on two other amendments. One included unemployment benefits and a Medicaid proposal. The other sought to undermine the constitutional powers of the Commander in Chief by proposing a withdrawal date from Iraq.

Got that?

The president, Republican faction leader Mitch McConnell casually asserted in passing yesterday on the Senate floor, to no objection from the majority Democratic political faction, does, will, shall, and must decide war policy for our nation, and the Congress of the United States shall be bound to obey and powerless to change the president's unilateral war policy, according to Senator McConnell's false, perverted and tyrannical assertion of the powerlessness of the people's branch of our federal government in matters of war and peace. Clear enough for you, American subjects? Because, remember, "Office of Legal Counsel" opinions of and for the Executive Branch wouldn't disagree with McConnell's dictatorial interpretation of our Constitution's separation of war powers - and we can 'state-secret-' or 'political-branch-question-' away any involvement from our third, judicial branch on this fundamental point of Constitutional interpretation - so what else could there possibly be to say on the matter...?

Please note, too, how McConnell's radical, dangerous, and Constitution-hostile claim of unchecked presidential power, though rarely so explicitly expressed, is the subtle but clear underlying premise contained in most media coverage about Iraq (and Iran), and in most political statements about Iraq made by politicians of both parties, including all three presidential candidates.

Iraq [aka "Bush's War" - a name with an unspoken premise that in our nation the president alone controls decisions about war and peace, and must only gain approval for funding from Congress] is a political football, used to enhance party power at the expense of the nation. If increasing power for your party means implicitly acknowledging or willingly accepting - whether due to ignorance or base deceit - a de facto dictator for a president, that's apparently just fine by the current Members of Congress supposedly representing us. Federal legislators who seem instead to swear allegiance only to their political faction - one of only two political parties now empowered to exist in our nation, which are together slowly but surely choking the life out of our Constitution.

Here's the quaking response to McConnell yesterday from Majority Leader Harry Reid, desperate to promote his party's interests, never mind the need for Constitutional security, by denying that his political faction beats its wives - ah, that is, by denying that his Democratic faction beats the troops by bringing them home instead of forcing them to remain in a bait-and-switch, deception-filled deployment in Iraq:

So, Mr. President, I know we have a difficult road ahead of us because we do not have war funding in this bill because the Republicans in the House did not vote for it. Don't blame it on the House Democrats. There were enough of them to get a majority to do it. The Republicans walked out.

.

But I say, Mr. President, is it any wonder that the House Republicans have lost three special elections in districts that are overwhelmingly Republican? ..snip.. Is it any wonder when they do tricks like this: "Democrats didn't fund the war"? "Well, don't check too closely because 132 of us just walked out and didn't vote."

So I am here, Mr. President. We are going to go to this bill this afternoon. I spoke briefly to the distinguished Republican leader yesterday. We are going to have to try to figure out some way to work together to get votes. At the end of the day, we will see what happens. In the past, war funding has been--after a lot of arm-twisting and cajoling, there have been enough votes to get that.

I don't know if the votes are here this time, but we certainly recognize that we have an issue, and we are going to do the best we can with my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky, to see what we can do to get to a point where we have this war funding over with until sometime next June. If we can't get it done, then we are going to have to worry about what we do in the next month, as he said, but hopefully we can complete it this week. - Harry Reid, 5/20/08

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=S4426&position=all