Mark Impomeni

Two former Secretaries of State, James Baker III, a Republican, and Warren Christopher, a Democrat, chaired a commission looking into the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution was passed by Congress toward the end of the Vietnam War and was intended to revamp the way that the nation was led into armed conflict. The resolution states that the president may only take the armed forced into conflict with the express approval of Congress through an authorization or a declaration of war. President Nixon vetoed the resolution when it passed, calling it unconstitutional, a position supported by every president since. Congress was able to override that veto.

Baker and Christopher admit that the resolution may indeed be unconstitutional and have proposed a new law aimed not at fixing the War Powers Resolution, but at creating a new regime for executive and legislative branch cooperation in matters of war and defense.

"Our proposed new law, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009, does not pretend to resolve the underlying constitutional issues - only a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision could do that. It would reserve the ability of both Congress and the president to assert their constitutional war powers. In drawing up the statute we focused on a common theme that almost all past proposals shared: the importance of meaningful consultation between the president and Congress before the nation is committed to war."

The Constitution divides the war powers of the federal government between Congress and the president. The president is the commander-in-chief of the military and has exclusive authority to command the armed forces in war time. Congress has the sole authority to declare war, although it has not done so since World War II, and controls the funding for military operations. The president has Constitutional authority to use military force in times of emergency or defensive necessity, but must go to Congress for authorization if hostilities are expected to last for an unspecified longer period of time. It is that lack of specificity that Baker and Christopher are trying to address with their proposal.

A new poll released by Insider Advantage/Poll Position has supporters of Sen. Barack Obama believing that he can win one of the reddest states in the nation, Georgia. With fifteen electoral votes, Georgia is a very attractive prize for the Obama campaign. If Obama is able to wrest Georgia from Republican hands on election night, it would be nearly impossible for Sen. John McCain to win the White House, and could be indicative of a national sweep for the Democrats. The poll shows Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain in a virtual dead heat in the state, McCain leading 46-44% with six percent undecided. Libertarian candidate and Georgia native, Bob Barr, receives four percent in the poll. The numbers are consistent with Insider Advantage's previous poll results in the state, which showed a 44-43 McCain lead on June 20.

Insider Advantage credits the large African-American population and relatively young voting age with Obama's success in the state. It also notes that Obama is "saturating" the state with television ads, while McCain has little in the way of advertising running in Georgia. The poll also asked respondents if they would be more or less likely to vote for Obama should he choose former U.S. Senator from Georgia Sam Nunn as his running mate. Fifty-one percent said that they would be more likely to vote for an Obama-Nunn ticket.

The Obama campaign believes that it can fundamentally change the electoral map that has held pretty much unchanged for the last two presidential elections. Georgia, however, will be a difficult state to flip. Georgia last voted for a Democrat in 1992, voting to send a Southern governor, Bill Clinton, to the White House. Prior to that, Georgia voted for the Republican three straight elections after voting for favorite son candidate Jimmy Carter twice in 1976 and 1980. Georgia has again been trending Republican in recent years, voting for Dole, Bush and Bush in 1996, 2000, and 2004. Furthermore, intrastate politics in Georgia has been going the Republican Party's way as well. Governor Sonny Perdue is the first Republican governor in the state since 1872 and was easily reelected to a second term in 2006, bucking a national trend favoring Democrats. Both houses of Georgia's legislature have been controlled by Republicans for all of Perdue's tenure, and the state has a majority Republican Congressional delegation, including two Republican Senators.

The Democratic Party officially announced today that Sen. Barack Obama will give his acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic National Convention in an outdoor address slated for Denver's Invesco field, home of the Denver Broncos football team. The speech is expected to draw 75,000 people and will be the first acceptance speech by a major party presidential candidate since then Sen. John F. Kennedy accepted the Democratic nomination at the Los Angeles Coliseum in 1960.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean cast the decision as a natural extension of Obama's campaign message. "This convention is meant to be opened up to the American people," Dean said.

"Senator Obama's candidacy has generated an enormous amount of excitement and interest. By bringing the last night of the convention out to the people, we will be able to showcase Barack Obama's positive, people-centered vision for our country in a big way."

The Republican Party disagreed, calling the move a cynical favoring of image over specifics. "Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats are more focused on stagecraft and theatrics than providing real solutions to the challenges facing our nation," it said.

While the outdoor speech is sure to be dramatic and produce stunning visuals, unless it rains, the Obama campaign risks showcasing the man over the message. Evidence that the campaign may be falling into that trap may be found in the campaign's announcement of the outdoor event. In a contest more fitting of a movie star or celebrity athlete than a presidential candidate, the campaign solicited donations with the promise that 10 donors would be chosen to spend two days at the convention, meet with Obama backstage, and receive tickets to see his acceptance speech in person. That will undoubtedly raise money for the campaign's coffers, but will open it to charges of building a cult of personality around the candidate. And, with all the advantages of his charisma, eloquence, and public disfavor with Republicans, Obama has not broken out of a 6-8 point lead over McCain in national polls. But Obama's handlers have made all the right moves in this campaign to date. They surely believe that they have made another winning decision in moving the candidate's speech to a bigger stage.

Over twelve hundred U.S. Army soldiers and Marines celebrated Independence Day by committing themselves to another four years of service to the country. Gen. David Petraeus was on hand at Camp Victory, U.S. headquarters in Baghdad, as the men and women took the oath, filling an atrium in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces to the bursting point. The troops sang "God Bless America" and heard a roll call of the states at the ceremony, and were treated to a traditional barbecue in honor of the Fourth afterwards.

Some of the troops told interviewers that the re-upped for the $15,000 bonus, but most expressed a dedication to duty and their comrades characteristic of the military. Many are on their second and third tours in Iraq, and it is a measure of their devotion that these soldiers would volunteer for more duty far from home and family.

The military has enjoyed very high re-enlistment rates throughout the war in Iraq. The large numbers of returning soldiers has helped to offset more sluggish recruitment numbers. As conditions in Iraq improve, and units are regularly rotated out of the country, the veteran troops will impart their war experience to relatively green units, helping to build an even more capable military.

A federal judge in the Northern District of California has ruled in favor of a challenge to the Bush Administration's terrorist surveillance program, saying that the Executive branch has no authority to conduct warrantless surveillance except under the conditions set forth by Congress in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The lawsuit, brought by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Muslim charity, alleged that the National Security Agency violated the FISA Act when it secretly monitored the foundation's communications under the controversial program. The judge ruled that FISA is the "exclusive" means of conducting such surveillance and agreed with the foundation's complaint.

"Congress appears clearly to have intended to - and did - establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted. Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch's authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities."

The Bush Administration has consistently argued that the president's authority to order the surveillance stems from his inherent power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It says that enemy surveillance is a function of war fighting and not subject to congressional or court oversight. The Administration also argues that the terrorist surveillance program is legal since it monitors only communications in which at least one of the parties is outside the United States.

The judge's ruling in the case seems to run afoul of Constitutional law. Constitutional powers cannot be "limited" by statute, only by an amendment to the Constitution. Just as a presidential Executive Order declaring that Congress cannot pass a law raising taxes would be unconstitutional, it is similarly unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law limiting the president's authority to command the armed forces in war time. Supporters of the terrorist surveillance program argue that the war on terrorism trumps Congress's intent in the 1978 FISA Act, while the program's detractors say that FISA is the legitimate governing standard. Whatever the opinions of the opposing sides, this case seems destined to one day be decided by the Supreme Court.

With little fanfare and scant media attention, the Bush Administration released a new report on progress in Iraq to Congress in May. The report concludes that the Iraqi government has made "satisfactory" progress on 15 of 18 benchmarks established by Congress and the Administration. That is double the number of satisfactory marks the Iraqi government received in a similar report one year ago, as the troop surge was being fully implemented. The remaining benchmarks that Baghdad still has work to do in order to meet are the hardest, including disarming militias and distributing oil revenues. Still, the sheer number of benchmarks showing progress compared to a year ago is another confirmation of the success of the Bush Administration's troop surge.

Democrats in Congress do not see it that way, however. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that Iraq would have made more progress if the United States had withdrawn, rather than add, troops. "The administration...has repeatedly missed opportunities to shift this burden to the Iraqis and appears willing to do so again," he said. "[T]here is broad consensus that there is no military solution and only a political settlement among the Iraqis can end the conflict." But the Iraqi government is increasingly providing that political solution, thanks in no small measure to the security improvements brought about by the troop surge and the growing capabilities of Iraqi Army and police forces.

Perhaps the best indicator of progress in Iraq is the slight but perceptible shift in Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's position on the war. His top foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, said in an interview yesterday that Obama will listen to the counsel of the commanders in Iraq, if elected, and declared the candidate's pledge to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration a "timetable" as opposed to a deadline. That slight softening of Obama's position on the war reflects the growing realization that conditions in Iraq are different and that the American people realize that there is a chance for a real victory there.

The Washington Post reports that the Obamas received a discounted rate on their personal mortgage from Northern Trust Bank. The loan was on the Obamas' Georgian-style mansion that has been the subject of some controversy for the campaign. Obama received a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust at a discounted interest rate of 5.625%, approximately three tenths below the average rate for similar loans in the Chicago area at the time. The Post reports that the Obamas paid no extra fees or discount points for receiving the lower rate.

While there are no allegations that the Obamas did anything wrong or received any special treatment due to his status as a U.S. Senator, the revelation could be damaging to the Obama campaign. Last month it was revealed that two prominent Obama backers, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), and a member of Obama's Vice-Presidential selection committee, Jim Johnson, received special deals from Countrywide Financial on their personal mortgages. Obama has spoken out against Countrywide and labeled the mortgage services giant, "the folks who are responsible for infecting the economy and creating, helping create a home foreclosure crisis."

At a press availability today, Sen. Barack Obama denied that he had repudiated General Wesley Clark's comments about Sen. John McCain's military service. Clark said on Sunday's Face the Nation that McCain's military service was not necessarily a qualification for the office of president. "I don't think that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president," he said. The McCain campaign produced no fewer than eight press releases from former military supporters of McCain decrying Clark's comments and calling them an attack.

Yesterday, Sen. Obama gave a speech on patriotism which the major media reported contained a rebuke of Clark's harsh remarks. But Sen. Obama disagrees. Obama reportedly was referring to Clark in this passage from the speech:

For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary.

And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.

Many Republicans said that those remarks did not amount to a repudiation of Clark, since Obama did not mention Clark by name. Now, Obama has confirmed that his call to honor the service of all who have sacrificed for the country had nothing to do with the controversy over Clark's denigration of McCain's military record.

The McCain campaign is not willing to let the controversy stirred up by Gen. Wesley Clark's comments about Sen. McCain's military service die just yet. On CBS's Face the Nation Sunday, Clark both hinted that McCain was a substandard Navy aviator and discounted his time spent as a prisoner of war in a North Vietnamese prison. In answer to a question from moderator Bob Schieffer, which pointed out that Sen. Barack Obama, on whose behalf Clark was appearing, did not have a military record or comparable executive experience, Clark said, "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."

The remark has sparked a firestorm in the campaign, with both campaigns holding conference calls to address the comments. McCain's press shop has blasted out no fewer than eight separate press releases highlighting various critics of Clark, including one tailored specifically to veterans in New Jersey, which the McCain campaign considers a swing state. Sen. John Warner, Colonel Bud Day, Admiral Leighton Smith, Rear Admiral Tom Lynch, Colonel Jack Jackson, Colonel Tom Moe, Commander Paul Galanti, and Master Sergeant Terry Benson have all been featured by the campaign expressing shock and outrage at the comments and labeling them an attack.

The campaign is also turning up the heat on Sen. Obama himself. Obama has not personally denounced Clark by name and only made reference to the controversy in a speech he delivered today on patriotism. The McCain campaign clearly does not think that's good enough, and will likely continue to push Obama on the issue until he addresses the remarks specifically. McCain's camp sees the remarks as part of a larger pattern of attacks on McCain's military service by Obama campaign surrogates, all of which have gone unanswered by the Obama campaign. Even if Sen. Obama continues to ignore the controversy's specifics, it is a sure bet that Wesley Clark will be making no more appearances on the campaign's behalf.

A 700-page study of the Iraq war and its aftermath by the United States Army released yesterday concludes that the post-war occupation phase of the conflict suffered from under-staffing and from incorrect assumptions by commanders as to just what the Army's role would be.

"Few commanders foresaw that full spectrum operations in Iraq would entail the simultaneous employment of offense, defense, stability, and support operations by units at all echelons of command to defeat new, vicious, and effective enemies.

[The] post-war situation in Iraq was severely out of line with the suppositions made at nearly every level before the war."

That means that the Army was operating in a "liberate and go home" mindset in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad, and expected Iraqis to take control of the country in very short order.

Critics of the Bush Administration's pre-war planning will seize on the report's conclusions as proof that the president led the nation to war without adequate preparations for the aftermath. That charge is necessarily informed by hindsight, however. Everyone agrees that the post-war occupation plan turned out to be insufficient to handle the conditions in the country, but that is not proof that there was no plan.