WASHINGTON
, Sept. 21 (UPI) -- Remarkably few U.S. senators and congressmen make it to the White House anymore. The latest fiddling and micromanaging by the majority Democrats in both houses of Congress over building ballistic-missile defense bases in Central Europe helps explain why.
On a major national security issue, involving both the defense of Western Europe and the United States from possible Iranian nuclear attack, and the danger of turning nuclear-armed Russia once again into a dangerous enemy of the West
, Democratic leaders appear determined to duck the issue or, at the very best
, to agree with the Republicans without actually saying so.
For after initially refusing to fund the Bush administration's request to build a base for 10 anti-ballistic missile interceptors in Poland, the Democrats have reversed themselves on the issue, but in tiny
, pettifogging ways. Their majorities in both the House and the Senate have approved funding to start work on a base in Poland for BMD interceptors to guard against a future nuclear missile attack by Iran against Western Europe and the United States. But even then
, they insisted on cutting start-up funds for the program.
Defense News reported Monday that both the House and the Senate agreed to trim funds the White House requested to build a base for 10 ABM interceptors in Poland to guard against some future possible Iranian ballistic missile attack against Western Europe or the U.S. mainland.
Previously
, Senate Democrats said they would fund a sister radar array base in the Czech Republic to track such missiles but would eliminate entirely the funds to build the controversial Polish base, which is opposed by Russia.
The House reduced the administration's request to build the two bases by $139 million from $310 million to $171 million. The Senate cut a smaller amount
, $85 million, approving $225 million for the program.
The differences will be resolved in a routine reconciliation conference. But it now looks unlikely the funds for the Polish interceptor base will be eliminated after all. And even the smaller cut proposed by the Senate may be further reduced.
The latest Democratic retreat on the issue in both the House and the Senate is consistent with members' reluctance to press or oppose President Bush in any significant way on his determination to keep large U.S. ground forces in Iraq for the indefinite future.
But it also reflects the nature of the U.S. Congress
, which is significantly different from most other national parliaments in other democratic political systems.
For in the United States, the executive branch is independent of the Legislature in that it is not directly responsible to it. A majority vote of no confidence in either or both houses of Congress cannot bring down a president or his administration. A president can certainly be impeached as an extreme measure, but the cumbersome process has only been attempted twice on all of U.S. political history -- against President Andrew Johnson in 1867 and against President Clinton in 1998.
Members of both the House and the Senate therefore usually advance in reputation and power by their legal abilities to craft and micromanage legislation, or negotiate compromises over it, rather than by boldly criticizing or opposing sitting presidents on key issues. Senators in particular are legendary for changing only slowly or gradually, even incrementally, in their stands on key issues of legislation. This is supposedly in line with their reputation for dignity and sagacity. In practice, however
, it often makes them simply look out of touch and absurd.
If Democratic congressional leaders believe the Iranian nuclear missile threat will be real and serious, they would have a strong case for boosting spending to accelerate the BMD base program rather than cutting its funding. But if they believe the threat is not real, or that the bases would be of little, if any use in preventing it, they would have a strong case for opposing the program, because the risks it generates by infuriating Russia would not be worth it.
Instead, they have ducked the issue and taken neither position. They have also bent backward to avoid opening any serious debate that would carefully examine both the Iranian threat and assess the seriousness of Russian opposition to the BMD bases. Instead of assessing the different threats, congressional leaders played political games with them.Related Topics Articles：
