By The River

In 1973, Congress, fed up with the Vietnam War and especially Republican President Richard M. Nixon's invasion of Cambodia in 1970, passed the War Powers Act. The law, enacted over Nixon's veto, requires the President to consult with Congress before committing U.S. forces to war and to seek Congressional authorization for the war within 60 days. If not, the troops are supposed to come home. If war is authorized, the President must report back to Congress on the course of the conflict at least every six months. Congress can cut off funds for a misguided war by majority vote.

It made sense then and it makes sense now. There are common-sense exceptions for attacks on the United States, but the law is supposed to prevent a President from launching wars-of-choice like Cambodia overseas. If he can persuade the Congress to authorize a war, as George W. Bush snowed Congress into doing for Iraq in 2002, he can still go to war. And Congress members can be held accountable for their votes, as Sen. Hillary Clinton was during the Democratic primary campaign.

But now a group of our supposedly wise elders, led by, get this, James Baker and Warren Christopher (see Florida, 2000), wants to "reform" the War Powers Act so lawyers like themselves will "respect" it. Question number 1 is who appointed Warren Christopher to represent the American people? After his weak, pathetic, playing-fields-of-Eton performance in the 2000 Florida recount fiasco (see the excellent film "Recount" on HBO) where Baker and the other Bush people arguably stole the election from Al Gore and gave us eight years of Bush. I don't want him anywhere near something as important as the War Powers Act. This is a bad joke.

For that matter, I don't see anyone on the "commission" appointed by the Miller Center for Public Policy at the University of Virginia to pursue "reform" of the War Powers Act who is remotely left-leaning or liberal. But the other side is well-represented. They get Ed Meese, but where's our Dennis Kucinich? If a commission with fair representation of the left came out with a recommendation to get rid of the War Powers Act, I would at least listen. But not to this bunch of Bush enablers.

Baker and Christopher propose a "War Powers Consultation Act" that would supposedly require a President to consult with specified members of Congress before going to war. But instead of automatically stopping a President's foreign adventure if the Congress fails to give approval within 60 days, the war would continue unless Congress acts on its own within 30 days. Kind of like one of those deals where a business charges you for something and won't stop charging you unless you object and wait on hold in voicemail hell for an hour. A vote to cut off funds for a war under the new Christopher surrender plan would require a two-thirds majority. Ask yourself this: do you really think Bush would have sought the Iraq War Resolution without the War Powers Act in place?

I frankly doubt this is going anywhere, but it shows the fragility of the legal protections the left has won for America in the past 40 years. Bush and his people--and McCain and his--would take them away if they could.