FAIR reiterates: Congress doesn't need to overcome veto or filibuster to end war

Media Misrepresent Dems' Options on Iraq War from FAIR

. . . Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq--it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41--the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War--if they choose to do so.

The Democratic leadership may believe--rightly or wrongly--that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation--by confusing "can't" with "won't."

why couldn't the dems do the same?

ellen fl

In the House, where appropriations bills originate, the dem leadership need only NOT SCHEDULE war appropriations bills for debate.

It would be a political gamble of course. And Democrats have not shown a lot of willingness to gamble lately.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

What's more important -- ???

:sarcasm: smiley?

The Dems are afraid of pissing off the 35%? :hi:

Simply refuse to pay more than it's worth to kill the brown people.

Shame on those who think it is worth anything.

Make an offer to pay what it IS worth. If Bush rejects the offer (veto) then offer LESS next time.

Negotiate as a SEPARATE and EQUAL branch of government.

If Bush threatens to hold the troops hostage in Iraq without funding, then IMPEACH him for any of his numerous crimes committed over the past 6 years.

Above all, get off the defensive appeasement and attack with what you've got. There are LIVES at stake.

FOX watchers and quite frankly I'm offended and pissed off. Stop feeding me the half truth that you can't override a veto so you can't stop funding the war. Just vote no to more war funding.

:shrug:

It's actually quite appalling to confront such a fundamental ignorance of the basics, including Constitutional provisions that have existed for over 220 years, on a site composed of people who view ourselves as so relatively well-informed.

It's bad enough to contemplate a general public who've been deluded into thinking that a halt in funding will somehow result in the troops being left in the field to starve, without ammo and without transport. But to see people claim idiotically that 60 or 67 Senate votes are required to refuse to wage an illegal war and occupation is truly disturbing. Any high school student SHOULD be able to do better.

Spread the word. Help out. If you know something I don't - just tell me and then I know it, too.

At any given time there will be people who don't know one thing or another. Derision educates no one. :thumbsdown:

In just the last month, I've personally had to make this point at least six times ... to apparently no effect. People even quibble and claim it's "not that simple." Well, it is that simple.

I've seen at least four other DUers make the same point - often to be reviled. (There's no accounting for the arrogance of ignorance, I guess.)


FYI: This is NOT new with the 110th Congress. The "Democratic" minority in the Senate, over the 41 needed for all 6 years, has had this power all along. But - as we're constantly reminded - they apparently can't muster up the "unity" to even find the 41 votes in their own caucus. One can only conclude that corruption and duplicity are not exclusively GOP attributes.

The Dems pretending like they don't have this power is infuriating.
I just hope you'll go on pointing it out to any and all who don't know the truth.
The more who learn it, the less cover our D.C. Dems have. So.... doing it again and again is not such a bad thing. I commend you for it.

I've had this same conversation over and over on DU - with the same people!

Everyone was lauding Joe Biden's eloquent denunciation of the war on Hardball the other day - but alas says Biden, we can't stop it for lack of sixty seven votes.

It's not just the media pushing this disgustingly dishonest meme, it's the Democratic leadership that doesn't want people to grasp the difference between can't and won't. Sick.

when they know very well that the House impeaches and the Senate convicts. When confronted with this fact, they get around it by saying something to the effect that "I was talking about conviction". They do this repeatedly whenever impeachment (not conviction) is being discussed.

:shrug:

It seems it's always about the NEXT election and never about the people being killed and war crimes being committed TODAY.

anyone who thinks differently for it to prevail. Otherwise, I don't think there would be a need at all to attack Democrats with such arrogance who have different ideas on how best to confront Bush or who have different notions of what it will take to end the occupation.

... with lips on his gluteus maximus. :shrug:

so satisfied with your own (unexplored, and as yet, unproven) argument. Is there really no room for different opinions and strategies on confronting Bush, given that none of those floated have any history of working perfectly against the specific dilemmas we face?

...but rather how to end the war, with or without Bush's cooperation. No confrontation is necessary. Congress has all the power in this regard-- that's ALL the power. They are simply choosing to be complicit, rather than choosing to end this madness. I don't really care what their reasons are-- cowardice, political expediency, whatever. They have the power to bring this war to an end. They are refusing to do so. That makes them complicit.

. . . will cause Bush to completely abandon his occupation. I suspect, neither do those who are resisting the defunding scheme described in the op. The act of merely voting 'no' on a funding bill doesn't direct Bush at all. Who knows how he'll string our troops out as he scrambles to find a 'way forward?' That concern is reason enough for me to avoid using funding which is intended for the troops as a political football.

Complicity is a subjective term. I don't believe, for instance, that providing funds to ensure the safety, security and well-being of the troops in the wake of a failure to achieve legislation mandating the removal of those troops from harm's way is 'complicity' with Bush. Money which is intended to maintain the troops in their deployment should never be used as a political wedge *while leaving those troops in harm's way, expecting Bush to notice or care. Either Democrats are able to manage the votes to put their demands into law or they're not. Expecting Bush to respond appropriately to a defunding action which directs him to do NOTHING is an amazing contradiction of all of the concern expressed over his judgment and actions so far.

Might we suggest those who oppose impeachment state their case based on something stronger than a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

generated 'in-house' without the benefit of some outside prosecution or investigation will be enough to move recalcitrant republicans to vote to convict. That would be an acquittal. It doesn't take any constitutional analysis to fathom that. I think a process which would be expected to lead to an acquittal would be no more effective than the investigations and confrontations already taking place (although I admit there would be more of a lever to force the release of the documents and testimony that's been obstructed so far. Not a guarantee, just more of a lever).

the got from the effort.

During the proceedings Clinton had an approval in the 60s but Gore ran away from him during his campaign and everyone who talked about Bill after that always started with, "sure he's a scumbag, but..."

The pukes reaped huge rewards for their ridiculous, failed attempt to parlay a little sex into the reversal of an election, but the Dems won't even get the ball rolling with war crimes to put forward.

... as a result of their insane persecution of a blowjob. The idea that a "failed" impeachment harms the party doing it is just plain insane.

bucking a strong historic trend in the opposite direction. They also were unable to produce a majority in 2000. If Nader hadn't bailed the GOP out, they would have lost that race.

Impeachment backfired on the GOP.

than staring down the most unpopular President of all time on this incredibly unpopular war. Not to mention, they lost some seats but retained the majority. If it was as bad for them as you think they would have lost the House and Senate and it wouldn't have taken a Jim Jeffords switch to Independent to sway things.

Rp

The opposition party almost always gains seats in the midterms and the "blame Nader" crap gets old. It wouldn't have been close enough for Nader, Buchanan, butterflies, or anything else to matter that much if it weren't for the Inquisition. "Clinton fatigue." Gore ran away from 8 years of peace and prosperity and a blowjob.

Like it or not, many voters build their impressions based on how BOLD and SELF-ASSURED the candidates appear. That's what passes for 'courage' in a couch-potato nation. When the Dems and Gore RAN AWAY from the blowjob, they sealed their own fate. Even though yellow dogs have this defend-the-party-right-or-wrong attitude, that's what a lot of people based their vote on.

since Democrats controlled the White House.

It would be interesting to dig up an exit poll and see what mattered to voters in 2000. I don't think anybody voted Republican out of gratitude for the blow job impeachment.

I believe the last two presidential elections were stolen. How we ever allowed Repuglican hacks to be in charge of voting and voting machines I will never understand.

but their job is to help catapult the propaganda. There are only a handful of the ProWar operatives, but they spend their workshift papering DU with their PartyLine bullshit and talking points.

It seems like a lot, but it is only a few. About the same number of Hillary supporters.

I don't think an impeachment without a conviction is worth a shit. I don't see any value at all in a process which is expected to end in an acquittal. I guess that makes me 'PartyLine'.

It's amazing how many here think they can defend their own 'propaganda' with insults, character attacks, and by using sly language to paint those those they disagree as 'republican'.

strung together to support a viewpoint that can't stand on its own.

For instance, the declaration that the Democratic Party "can't stop the war because they don't have 60 votes" is an outright LIE that is being used to deflect criticism of the Democratic Party.
Now THATS propaganda.

would automatically cause Bush to end his occupation and withdraw. It's an unproven assertion.

If Democrats did manage to adopt the 'no vote' approach, they would have absolutely NO control over what Bush would do next to maintain his deployment. They have absolutely NO control over where the shortfalls would occur. Who knows how Bush would respond?

That's why some think it's imperative that there be some legislation which mandates a withdraw by the force of law. That's not propaganda, it's a different point of view.

If the Democrats continue to fully fund the War/Occupation of Iraq, many more Americans and Iraqi civilians will continue to be maimed and killed.

We also know this:
If the Democrats continue to fully fund the War/Occupation of Iraq, $Billions of taxpayer dollars will continue to be funneled into the pockets of those who profit from the WAR and sponsor politicians (Democrats & Republicans) who do their bidding.

Idle speculation that Bush* might let our troops starve in the field is not a valid reason for continuing to fund the WAR. It is a cheap scare tactic, especially when considered with the CERTAINTY of the continued DEATH & DESTRUCTION that comes with the continued funding.
America will NOT let our troops starve in the field. The Military, the Pentagon, The Republican Party, ALL of America will revolt before our troops are abandoned in Iraq.

It is time to FORCE the issue, not cower in FEAR.


The Democratic Party has the power to STOP the Iraq War. THAT is a FACT, not an "unproven assertion". This ability was demonstrated at the end of the Vietnam War. It is etched in the stone of History. Your speculation that Bush* will let the troops starve in the field IS an "unproven assertion."


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

to end it. We can surmise that there would be shortfalls, but we have absolutely no way of knowing how Bush would address those.

Just accusing those Democrats who are concerned about the effect of such an action of 'cowardice' isn't much of an argument. It's just a baseless insult.

It's not 'idle speculation' that Bush would leave our troops in a bad way without noticing or caring about some budget shortfall. I can't see how some can argue about his corruption and indifference and then argue that he'd notice or care enough the welfare of the troops as they faced down those anticipated shortages. How would Congress respond to an assertion from Bush, in that case, that there is no actual mandate from them to end the occupation, just a refusal to give the troops already deployed what they need to keep them safe and secure?

and let bush leave them in a bad way?

I don't, not for a minute.

needed to intimidate and cow a resisting population of millions. 3800 dead, tens of thousands maimed. Where's the evidence that they actually care about the welfare of these soldiers?

I think if we cut off funds for Crocker's and Petraeus' personal gourmet chef and digs it would have more of an effect in moving them than expecting them to notice or care enough about the troops they've cynically agreed to put to the task of giving room for Iraqis to practice their politics.

Also, there are short-term provisions they can exploit to provide for those basics, such as food, that you describe.


from the Democratic radio address:

“ . . . while dining on lobster tortellini in the air-conditioned elegance of Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s home in the Green Zone, General David Petraeus, commander of our forces in Iraq, made the case with charts and pointer that the security situation had improved somewhat during the surge. And yet while we were choosing between coffee, tea, or espresso to go with our dessert, outside in the 120 degree heat on that very day, August 6, four U.S. soldiers were killed by an IED blast in Diyala, one British soldier was shot in Basra, six street cleaners were blown up, 33 Iraqis were killed in a residential neighborhood in Tal Afar, and 17 bodies killed by death squads were discovered.

“Outside in the scorching air, our young men and woman in uniform were sweating under their body armor during, what is in fact, the bloodiest summer of the war, driving on roads that our delegation flew over in Blackhawk helicopters because the driving was too dangerous for us. There they were, doing their valiant best to carry out a misguided mission, risking and too often losing their lives, while we looked at a chart telling us that in one place, in one month, after four and a half years, there had been a slight drop in violence. There was no chart showing that overall sectarian attacks around the country had nearly doubled from last year. And there was no chart that measured the more than 3,700 of our troops that have been killed and the more than 27,660 wounded, many profoundly and for life.

“Neither was there a chart showing the enormous cost of the war, now up to $3 billion a week, $12 million every hour – enough to fix all the broken bridges in our country, expand health care coverage for our children, help our students afford college, develop renewable sources of energy, and make our streets safer.

“And as we finished our strawberry cake, our troops were out in the real world and not there to hear General Petraeus tell us that the United States would be in Iraq for another nine to 10 years. That means children who are now 8 years old, who were 4 years old when the war started, could yet serve in Iraq, according to General Petraeus.

http://www.janschakowsky.org/SchaBLOGsky/tabid/36/ctl/ArticleView/mid/512/articleId/463/Text-of-Jans-Democratic-Radio-Response.aspx

you are breaking the military for nothing except your ego.

if bush doesn't pay the troops, do you really believe they will just say, uh, ok. If bush doesn't feed the troops, do you really believe they won't take measures into there own hands?

Look at the retention rates as of now. If there were no money for those bonuses, what would it be?

If they cut off the war, a great many more Iraqis will die and the Democrats will get the blame for whatever happens. Cutting off funding could end US involvement in Iraq but it won't begin to end the deaths.

I think the next appropriation for Iraq is part of the general defense budget. To cut off the money would mean cutting off the entire defense budget. Politically, it would be a dangerous game of chicken with Bush, the lunatic.

Only 26% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Pulling the plug entirely on the war would be very unpopular.

Most here see ending the war as the top priority for America. As bad as the war is, it won't end America. The GOP wishes to take the nation into fascism. That would end America. I monitor the wingers and they are crazy as hell. Iraq is just one of an endless string of wars they'd like America to start. Stopping the GOP is my top priority, and I'll continue to challenge advocates of actions that would hurt the chances of the Democrats to head off America's destruction. Call me an apologist if you like.

'cause he WOULDN'T BE GETTING IT FROM CONGRESS...

And Congress CONTROLS the purse...

It IS that simple if the political will is there...

if you trust Bush to respond appropriately

It's logistics, not politics. Bush can piss down his cowboy boots all he wants, but in the end he is nothing more than a civilian figurehead in military matters. If the funds and resources needed to fight a war do not reach the war front, that front will fold up and go home. It really is that simple.

What we need to do is put forward and pass a new GI bill type of legislation to compensate the men and women returning from Iraq, and then stop the war funding. That way the soldiers have something to come home to, providing a strong leg up.

It's a typical juvenile tactic here to throw that bullshit around. For all I know, YOU could be operating out of his pocket.

I just don't believe the defunding scheme in the op will effectively end the occupation. It relies on Bush to determine the end. Congress needs to keep pressing legislation mandating an end, not rely on an action which assumes Bush will do what we want without the force of law.

You however seem obsessively worried about his "response" to this course of action. I'm telling you, his response is irrelevant. This is a logistics move, not a political one. Cutting away funding literally cuts away the ability to maintain the occupation, and there is no amount of huffing and puffing from anyone in Washington that could halt the subsequent pullout.

It's not about Bush, Bigtree. It never has been. He's the flagship, but there's still the armada that we need to worry about.

if we cannot legislatively mandate an end to the occupation. I just don't think it's smart to just refuse to vote for some budget request and be satisfied that the action will move Bush in the direction we want. I'm not convinced that he couldn't just pull money from other parts of the defense budget without much trouble. To underestimate the ability and intention of Bush to remain in Iraq at all costs seems to be counter to all of the complaint about his blatant abuse of authority and disregard for the actions and will of Congress so far. I don't think Bush will move far off of ANY of his militarism unless he's confronted by a mandate of law. Even then, it will probably take some more forcing to get him to comply. To ignore or disregard his potential to brush right past any action short of enforceable legislation seems to fly right in the face of everything we've learned about this administration.

...the military to withdraw from Iraq. The Congress has SOLE AUTHORITY to authorize war and the power of the purse is one of the avenues to do so-- or not. Their refusal to appropriate funds would either force the executive branch to withdraw or it would precipitate a constitutional crisis if Bush refused-- and the military works for BOTH branches of government, not just the executive. The president has authority over the conduct of war, but congress has COMPLETE authority to shut it down.

The dems control the agenda in congress. They can end the war quickly if they choose to.

It may prevent him from effectively pursuing some of his ambitions, but there is absolutely no way of knowing what this administration would do in the face of a mere 'no' vote on a funding request until there was some degradation of the forces in Iraq that happens to concern them. I really don't think Bush has an appropriate amount of concern for such a passive action to effectively restrain him.

It's a precedent to go with --

When you follow your conscience -- which the Dems should be doing -- and as those with anti-war sentiments are trying to do -- there are guarantees that you can "control" the opposition.

In holding back Bush's requests, the Democrats can also make it clear that they will only entertain expenses to return the troops home safely -- and as soon as possible.

:shrug:

is that really so unusual that folks who share the same ultimate goals can disagree on tactics and strategies to effect those goals?

Most of what is presented here is opinion :shrug:

I don't... :shrug:

"They are playing a deep political game..."

If they are, it's to keep their anti-war base voting for them while they authorize war with Iran and anyone else who has resources we want.

It's sort of like "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold"...

Their plan is so deep, so secret that THEY'VE even forgotten what it was... :shrug:

"I don't think an impeachment without a conviction is worth a shit. I don't see any value at all in a process which is expected to end in an acquittal."

The thought of an acquittal in this case is very distasteful to me, as well. However, here's the VALUE in doing it anyway....Because it's the RIGHT thing to do! It makes a stand, it shows that our laws have meaning, it shows the rest of the world that we DO NOT CONDONE the actions of this administration. It shows that we TRIED to put a stop to them. If nothing else comes of it, at the very LEAST it puts it on the record for history to show that we tried to stop them, we believe in the rule of law, and that we did not condone the crimes and abuses of this administration.

That's why it's "worth a shit".

But so what? Make it clear who's fault it is that his army toys weren't put away after Mom and Dad told him that it was time to go to bed.

The general refusal to attack Bush, Cheney and Rove head on and call them on their blatant lying drives me up a wall some days.

we should at least care about and respond to their welfare needs while they remain deployed (while we're working to pass legislation mandating their return) more than Bush and his republicans.

You know the general rule when dealing with blackmail? The blackmailer will reveal your secret in the end anyway, after they've bled you dry. Best to bring the skeleton out of the closet and take your lumps.

This is the same- in your desire to "protect the troops", you are making it worse for them. 15 month deployments, pay cuts, retirement cuts if they happen to survive that long...

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I'm assuming you have good intentions(if you don't, I don't want to know about it), but you aren't getting that every minute we leave troops there means more of them dying, more of them are killing and raping iraqis, and more money is being poured into the pockets of the "elites."

If you agree with what we're doing there, just say so. Otherwise, why are we allowing them to stock those permanent bases? Do you really want this to go on forever?

They don't deserve to bear the brunt of the defunding. They don't deserve to bear the brunt of any political fight. As long as they are deployed their needs deserve to be fully funded. We didn't say to them when they joined that we would only care for their safety and well-being while deployed if we agreed with the mission they were ordered to perform. Until we manage to mandate the end to the occupation by the force of law, those troops are effectively at the mercy of whatever forces threaten their survival. They have no way of affecting the length of their deployment.

Until we manage to pass legislation mandating their removal from Iraq they are at the mercy of whatever mission Bush and his generals decide for them. They deserve to have enough (dependable) funding to keep them safe and secure. That's not too much to ask while the politicians continue to squabble.

It's not as if there's some evidence that Bush will neatly fold just because Congress refused his budget request. He's been pressing forward without regard to the casualties and difficulties for our troops so far.

As for the 'agreeing' you're intimating, I think it's extremely dishonest to disregard my concern that Bush hasn't shown he gives a wit about the safety and welfare of the troops enough to immediately remove them and end his occupationbecause of some budget shortfall, and draw some inference from that concern that I want the occupation to go on forever.

I simply don't buy the argument that the mere act of refusing to vote for some budget request, effectively directing Bush to do NOTHING at all, is such a superior strategy that it's proponents can sit satisfied that they have a 'slam-dunk' panacea for forcing an end to the occupation.

Bush and his supporters(which may include the Dems) are blackmailing us.



I don't know what koolaid you're drinking, but you seem to have forgotten that the troops were sent into this war as political pawns, without adequate armor and other necessities, and with continuing disregard for their health and well-being. In other words, the troops are already suffering all that you state MIGHT happen is we defund.

As for "force of law", "The Decider" has been operating outside those bounds for many years now. You want some sort of legal document stating that the "war"(read, invasion and occupation for material gain) is over? I'm sorry to inform you that the Constitution was suspended last year with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We don't have a lawful Gov't right now.



And it is dishonest for you to disregard that we participated in an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. This is not something you can say "I don't support it, but we have to do x before we leave." Either you support it and deny rule of law, or you don't and you find ways to make it stop. Our troops are committing war crimes there every day, and more stories are leaking out all the time. They want out, and they NEED to get out. Read my post at #59, and tell me it isn't that simple. Quit calling for more of this insanity.



Refusing to fund the war signals a lack of support for the policy. If Bush pushes on after that by digging into other programs for money, Congress can tell him to keep his hands out of those designated programs. All of Bush's options become bad at that point. I'd like to know how pushing Bush into such a position is a bad idea.

they don't deserve to be left without essential funds. I think Congress tried to thread that needle in the last supplemental.

Iv'e never called for any more war or occupation so you are just making shit up. I just refuse to believe that an action which directs Bush to do NOTHING and expects him to notice or care enough about some funding shortfall to end the occupation is overly optimistic and unbelievably trusting of what Bush would do in response. You don't have any grounds at all to take my concern for what would occur as a result of the op's defunding scheme and twist it into me accepting an illegal occupation. You're talking out of your ass to someone you know absolutely NOTHING about (and apparently don't care to). Who the fuck are you to tell me what I believe or substitute my words with your biased own? Save that crap for the REAL opposition. This is a discussion, not a campaign.

As, I've stated, I believe there are alternative ways Bush has available of stringing the occupation out, limping our troops along, without Congress funding these large budget requests. He's already used a few. If the troops had

I think that prospect is that Bush could continue, even in a limited manner, and that puts the burden of the expected shortfalls on the soldiers left in Iraq without mandating that he remove them at all.

You are arguing against a tool that is viable to use against the continuing war effort, on a premise that is laughable- and many have addressed it here besides me. Those troops are in more danger due to continued funding that is not going to them anyway- it's going to the private corporations.

Since you continue to use the same talking point that this is somehow harming the troops(who are already being harmed), I'm done arguing with you. Either you believe this talking point beyond the point of accepting evidence presented against it, or you have a stake in preventing this discussion.

Personally, I don't think the Dems care enough about the troops to do anything to bring them home, so your side wins anyway. Congrats.

I don't think the defunding scheme described in the op will work. I think it's misdirected to affect the troops, expecting Bush to notice or care.

I don't think this scheme will achieve MY goal of a withdrawal. The goal that I have made great personal sacrifices to advocate for. You assume that your scheme is infallible, so it makes you comfortable in painting every other course as enabling and complicit. But, I believe the scheme you advocate won't accomplish the gaol you claim to seek. Your unproven, untested scheme has no more credibility than any other strategy proposed by folks who have also spent their time and efforts trying to end the occupation and advocate different strategies for success.

Come down from your high horse.

Beyond "habeas corpus"?

The more fundamental limit of the Magna Carta was the power of the purse. It meant that the King could only do what the nobles (now the people) would fund. Imagine was Henry the Eighth would do if money were withheld for a war effort. Do you think he would have an "orderly withdrawal"? This power, that Congress has, and in particular the House, is always a draconian power. It has draconian effect. That is the point. To reign in pissypants, Congress is going to have to take VERY tough stands. If he even HINTS at leaving the troops there, impeach his ass!

there wouldn't be a case at all to be made that a simple majority of Congress' refusal to vote for a budget request mandated Bush to end his occupation.

Yet, it would be clear that congress is no longer supporting the war. The original resolution, was NOT a declaration of war. It does not live up to the rule of law.

BTW, Congress can pass a resolution without the President's consent. Only laws require that.

They can simply release a statement.

"We are unwilling to fund these efforts any longer. We will provide money for withdrawal if necessary, but the House will consider no more bills providing funding to the Iraq war."

As for Bigtree's point about "Not sending a clear message", I'm assuming he means an "Order." Even with a 67 vote bill, Bush will assert Commander in Chief authority to ignore it, and Roberts and Alito will back him up on it.

Since that is not feasible, both from the votes in the senate and from the Supreme Court, then this path is a far better idea, and an alternative to impeachment for those who are unsupportive of it, but would like to end the occupation.

Sooner or later the big bully is bound to get tired of his nasty game and walk away. And after he goes, all the Democrats can come out of hiding, breath deeply the fresh air, look in wonder at the rainbow, and smell the flowers.

Then, when it is certain all is clear, they can stand tall and act like leaders again under the worshipful gaze of an adoring nation.

Unless the wacko uses the big bombs of his Manichean fantasy.

The DoD's 2007 regular budget is about $440 BILLION. They have more than enough money to implement contingency plans for withdrawal. The notion that troops will be abandoned in the field without food or supplies is ludicrous and insulting. The supplemental appropriation is for continued fighting, not for withdrawal. If Congress gives Bush another supplemental, it will only be for STAYING in Iraq.

without a supplemental. Besides, it has never been the intent of Congress to just stamp Bush's request and send him the money. In the last supplemental there were Democratic priorities for the troops included with other items that supported the veterans here at home. But, the defunding scheme described in the op has no power to direct Bush to do anything. It relies on Bush's judgment in ensuring that our soldiers have a dependable supply of the equipment and supplies they need to accomplish whatever they are tasked to accomplish by Bush in the interim we would be waiting for Bush to give a damn about their welfare.

I believe we need to craft our own withdrawal legislation and not leave the issue of ensuring that our troops have the necessary supplies and equipment to Bush and the republicans who have neglected those needs so far. Obviously, if we can manage legislation which mandates their removal, any funding comes home with them. If we don't accomplish mandating legislation, they are at the whim of whatever Bush decides to do with them. That, to me, is an amazing abdication of our responsibility to those troops we FAILED in our effort to mandate a withdrawal.

losing their lives at the hands of the occupation...

There is no realistic scenario whre cessation of funding for continued occupation of Iraq would cause troops to be "stranded." Period.

by the refusal of republicans to vote with a veto-busting margin of support for legislation containing a date certain for withdrawal.

Who decides the duration of their deployment in a case where Congress fails to advance any mandating legislation? Isn't Bush effectively in control of that? What leads you to trust that Bush would care enough about our troops to prevent the effects of some funding shortfall from affecting their safety *or well-being?

How is Congress supposed to be able to manage that responsibility for the safety and well-being of the troops if Bush does hang them out? Is it really beyond Bush to put our troops at an unnecessary risk to further his political and personal agenda?

... contemplate not impeaching Cheney/Bush at the same time they contemplate that Cheney/Bush would strand the troops in Iraq if the funding for combat operations in Iraq were suspended/run out?

If funding funding for combat operations in Iraq were brought to a halt, as the Constitution provides, and the pResident were to order the military to NOT transport and redeploy those troops, then how could anyone possibly sit still for such an overtly criminal and INSANE act?

Remember, the cessation of funding for combat operations in Iraq would NOT stop funding for the operations of the military in other endeavors. Ships would still be fueled. Aircraft would still take off and land all over the world. Military bases in Germany, Italy, Diego Garcia, and hundreds of other locations all over the world would still operate. It would take an overt act on the part of the "Kommander In Chief" to BLOCK the redeployment and evacuation of troops from Iraq.

Describe, in detail, how such a scenario could possibly develop ... ASSUMING (as you do) that the "votes for impeachment aren't there."

This discussion supposedly focuses on some "real world" rationale for the behavior of Congress - NOT some parade of horribles. Such "positions of convenience" about alleged future events and conditions are mutually inconsistent and baseless.

If Bush continued to press the troops forward without funding (as a result the defuuding scheme outlined in the op), and there were negative effects on the troops deployed, there would certainly be an argument to be made that some responsibility for those effects fall on the Democrats who refused to advance those funds which could be identified as essential.

So, we'd continue our demand for an end date, but we'd still lack that veto-proof letter of law. We'd have failed to achieve an enforceable mandate for Bush to end the occupation, yet refused to provide funds for whatever could be shown to have negatively affected the troops. The debate that would ensue over that wouldn't just be a political matter for some legislator's future, it would affect any other attempt to pass such a mandate of law.

If, though, Bush managed a sleight of hand and managed to shift funds to continue, for instance, from future appropriations for the big ticket weapons systems that were included in previous republican funding bills, the strategy of refusing to confront him with legislation would really take on an air of complicity.

I think Democrats are correct (but obviously hindered by republican obstruction) in continuing to work to craft legislation which intends to confront Bush on Iraq at his desk. At some point, there will be a need to actually mandate our concerns into law in order to effectively control the direction of the occupation. I don't think we should be so sanguine in adopting or supporting schemes to confront this administration which aren't enforceable by the rule of law.

In addition, I'm not convinced that any old impeachment would put an end to Bush's reckless exercise of our military. In some scenarios, I could envision him wagging his Iranian pet if confronted with a weak partisan attempt which is based on in-house generated articles which are already actively opposed by the opposition we expect to come up with enough votes to convict.

But lets say that Bush does, just to address the "worries" of the koolaid drinkers.

This wouldn't be a problem if the Dems had appropriately jumped on the Walter Reid scandal- they could have permanently shut up the Repubs favorite talking point of "supporting the troops."

If Bush left the troops stranded there, Congress could "come to the rescue" with emergency withdrawal funds, and if Bush Vetoed that, I bet we could get a few people to start supporting impeachment.

It's fucking laughable to contemplate any scenario where military units in Iraq just sat there and starved. No way. Now how.

We do that to refugee people of Iraq ... and Darfur. Not to our "boys and girls in uniform."

Hell, if I thought for even a nanosecond that Cheney/Bush would try such a game, I'd be even stronger in the front of the line yelling "Bring It On!" There's be no more complete demise of this adminstration than such a foolhardy ploy. Shit ... even Lindsay Graham would be calling for a hanging.

"Democrats don't support the troops in a time of war".

That's what this bullshit is all about. The Democrats have become so cowed by that one sentence that they are paralyzed to do anything.

We need to simply start passing bills that fund every freaking aspect of troop support -- hospitalization, pay, armor -- EXCEPT continuation of the war of occupation. Give Bush funds necessary to pull the troops back to a safe distance. Give him the money to do any diplomatic initiative. But don't give him any more money for troop deployment.

Take the initiative. Of course Bush will veto the first 10 bills he gets. But if the Dems put one of their "Support the Troops" bills in front of Bush every single week and make him veto the money supporting the troops every single week, most of the public will eventually get it.

They don't need a single goddamn GOP vote to make this happen. Force the GOP Senators or congressmen to take a stand. Do you support the troops or don't you? Tell the GOP to either get with our bills or suffer the consequences.

let's see, the democratic party can but won't end the war. gosh teacher, i'm not sure, maybe the want the war? could it even be that's why they voted for it in the first place? gee whiz, politics sure is complicated.

you don't get big $$$ or media attention if you don't play ball

several sources have said that Bush has had enough money to continue on in Iraq ANYWAY, no matter if Congress held back that one temporary supplemental or not.

What's missing from the argument is ANY analysis of Bush's ability to continue. Just as there was ZERO concern about that from critics the last round, there is zero acknowledgment of that in this appeal. I've been told how stupid I am for suggesting that Bush could cannibalize the Defense budget to get the funds he needs; that the move would be illegal. But he already has done just that, in increments, to keep up with basic services and supplies to Iraq.

Also, if critics of Democrats in Congress, like Kucinich, insist that
money is already 'in the pipeline' (or was) to effect a lengthy and complicated withdrawal, there is also money 'in the pipeline' for Bush to continue on in some fashion.

The action of sitting on their hands and refusing to put together their own legislation, whether it provides 'funds' for the soldiers already deployed or not, does NOTHING to direct Bush. It tells him to do NOTHING in Iraq. It simply says that Congress refuses to direct activities there except by creating shortfalls wherever Bush decides to bleed the troops to continue. NO one who advocates pulling funds and who expects Bush to notice or care enough about some funding shortfall to end his occupation can tell us with any certainty where Bush will allow that shortfall to manifest itself; whether it will be the soldiers who are affected first, whether it will be equipment which will suffer; supplies; armor.

Those are legitimate reasons why someone who has the responsibility for those troops in the field may not think that sitting on their hands in some defending strategy, not directing Bush to do ANYTHING, might not work out as planned. It may well cause a chaotic scramble by the administration and the Pentagon to maintain their deployments, but defunding by just refusing to direct Bush through legislation is a blunt tool which will have consequences for the troops in Iraq.

I think we deserve to have those consequences spelled out by proponents of this action rather than just shouting down those of us with concerns about Bush's potential to limp our troops along without funding.

The Dems are playing "business as usual" when this is not "America as usual."

and working to confront him with legislation actually directing him to do something about his occupation isn't just as simple as 'helping him out'. It would be different if it was Bush and his cabinet in Iraq and we were pulling the money from them. But the funding affects those deployed in Iraq and in support positions around the region. I'm arguing for a careful debate over this which doesn't ignore the fact that the action expects Bush to direct the unraveling.

The action expects Bush and his minions who have already pressed our troops forward - as they've sustained over 3800 deaths and tens of thousands of injuries - to decide where the shortfalls occur. That's not responsible at all, in my view. Do we really know for certain whether or not Bush would be able to just limp our troops along? Is anyone arguing that he gives enough of a damn about their welfare to notice or care about some funding shortage?

They need to keep harping on this issue and getting their constituents' support (as Reagan's Republicans somehow knew how to do and today's Democrats can't).

Remember that when the Dems stood together to defend Social Security, Bush backed down.

You cannot compromise with a bully. You have to stand up to him. This is what Bill Clinton didn't realize. The contemporary Republicans are bullies, pure and simple, and when Clinton tried to compromise with them, it was tantamount to placing a "kick me" sign on his butt.

The Dems need to craft legislation that provides funding ONLY for bringing troops home. Of course, Bush will veto it, but then you submit it again...and again...and again...all the while telling the constituents back home that you're trying to bring the troops home and Bush is preventing it.

but I really can't agree with a strategy which intends to cut off funds while directing Bush to do nothing at all. That's what the op is about.

And I'm wary of a strategy which intends to cut off funds in the wake of a failure to enact legislation directing Bush to end the occupation. How does Congress tell Bush he's hurting the forces by continuing on (if he does anyway) if they essentially haven't directed him to do anything?

The majority of this country supports a deadline.

Why haven't they done it?

That doesn't mean we are ever going to get it.

The representatives have incentives to avoid the stigma of disloyalty to the ruling class of economic royalists.

:(

...and then refunding only specifically for withdrawl of troops if bush fucks up the withdrwal.

also, isn't defunding a "direction" to bush. doesn't it say, at least implicitly, that he must withdraw.

There was no money for fuel for the flight over.

So we checked out of our stateside barracks and checked into temporary housing while the war raged on in Vietnam.

That lasted for a few weeks. They let us go home or wherever we could get to nearby the base.

So, how about delaying the next payment a few weeks so the cowardly congress can get a feel for the public sentiment by putting in their dainty toe in the water rather than diving in.

I'm just looking for some sign of life there that is more than hot air over gums.

I'm also looking for them to throw themselves in the road.

I would advocate holding back funding on budget requests for everything else (non-essential) that Bush and his republicans want to spend our money on until they capitulate on Iraq. But, I'm not so jazzed about holding money back from the troops Congress has effectively failed to remove from the line of fire.

Congress is afraid that Bush doesn't care who dies. Congress is afraid of Bush.

Congress is also afraid that if they take the least action against Bush, the dam of public sentiment is going to burst and they will be swept away and be forced to take more actions that would cast them as disloyal to their class.

the political concerns are also for the success of whatever action they take; whether they can manage to get enough support among legislators to carry out whatever they propose. To ignore the politics and simply press forward wouldn't necessarily ensure the success of a defunding scheme.

That' said, I'm advocating blocking action on budget requests from the White House and the republicans until they bend our way on Iraq. *I'm just not alright with blocking funds which are intended for the troops in Iraq if Congress hasn't passed any legislation mandating their removal

Not mine.

I was against this war and every other since 1964...Ain't my god damn troops.

If Congress refused to fund this war by NOT allowing a vote on another supplemental the 65%+ of the USAmerican people would demand that he get the legions out of Iraq...

It's politics. It's what the majority voted the Dems in for -- end this war...

There is also the bloated war budget -- over 500 BILLION I last heard. They would just have to cut out a couple of obsolete weapons systems they're pissing away our tax dollars on (designed to fight the USSR) and use the funds to "bring the troops home"...

You are correct, they can't "DIRECT" bush to do anything at this point -- they fucked that up when they pass the IWR. But they don't have to continue to act the accomplice to his mass murder...

this bloody nightmare.

They're supporting the military industrial complex along with the neocons.

You can imagine the attack ads that could be made from this.

the dems could bask in an emperor wears no clothes moment if they just had a little courage

:shrug:

that was a different time...

The mood of the USAmericans is one of combat fatigue and encroaching national bankruptcy.

There aren't empough of them left that would swallow that old crap again...

It was another of the rethuglican electoral machine's statistical miracles. Don't assume the attack add worked. IT DIDN'T!

It is apparently too simple for some to understand or acknowledge.

so even though they gave up their sole right to declare war willingly, don't see why they should have to pass legislation to end it.

Just don't fund it you mental midgets!

Instead they'd rather play word games --which they always lose-- with the Greedy Old Perverts.

can keep it from coming to a vote in the House. Nancy P.

wait for Bush to do the right thing? wait for Bush to decide where to spend the money he has left, where to cut off the money? wait for Bush to show he gives a damn about the troops he's left in the field to die at the level of 3800 so far?

How will Congress respond when he then claims (*again) that he hasn't been directed to do ANYTHING (by the force of law) to remove the troops but doesn't have the money to assure their safety and well-being? Do they claim, as some have (again), that there's 'money enough in the pipeline to manage those concerns?'

If Congress isn't able to manage the votes to overcome Bush's vetoed objection to legislation containing an end date for withdrawal, there isn't anything at all to force an end to the occupation. There may be enough damage to the supply chain and other funding concerns to make a mess of the occupation and, perhaps delay deployments. But there's no way for Congress to manage that situation by just refusing to vote for some budget request or the other. That's not to say that they should vote for any request. It does mean that any refusal by Democrats to provide funds for troops who are effectively stranded in Iraq by their failure to pass legislation mandating their withdraw by the force of law makes them responsible for the effects of those cuts. Those effects may not materialize as an immediate turn around by Bush.

I really don't understand why some are so satisfied with the potential prospect of Bush pushing our troops forward on a shoestring until the operation collapses. That collapse will almost certainly be felt first by the soldiers already deployed.

I think it's just plain irresponsible to completely cut off the funding for troops already "in the field' in the wake of a failure to mandate an end to their deployments by the force of law.

Dems are damned if they do & damned if they don't. That is exactly where Busholini & Cheney want them to be. Rethugs are clever and ruthless. Compromising with them is not possible. It is always their way or no way. Dems are deathly afraid of cutting off funds because they will be blamed for the aftermath of that action. The only thing they can do is voice opposition to the US Occupation of Iraq. They cannot force the end of it. None have actually said that they want "All" the US Troops out of Iraq. A residual force has been the advocated. How many would stay has not been stated. I would be stunned if the US Occupation does not last for another year. In fact, I strongly feel that if a Dem were elected Pres., which is not a forgone conclusion, that the US Occupation would continue, albeit a smaller presence.

SO what, filibusters are frowned upon. Do you really think the American people care? If the democrats did that at this time they would be considered heroes for saving the lives of every soldier who came home!

The only funding you need to cut is to the Iraqis. If all transfer of money or material to the Iraqis is stopped this war will dry up and blow away. Their current oil revenue will not support them. The justification is their kidnapping and execution of four american soldiers. Pictures of the bloody back seat of an Iraqi government SUV, no doubt paid for in some manner by our taxpayers should quell any opposition. The key to any victory is pick a weakness and attack.

brought to the floors of the House or Senate. Period.

Leadership had the same choice with the FISA Amendment and instead of not introducing that amendment, chose to cave in to Shrub and help kill our Fourth Amendment.

big time if they have the courage to end the war. Hey, dems, get a PR man; the pugs have them.

Illegal, immoral and predicated on lies. This country will PUNISH those that take no action to end it.

It would be political suicide.

will clobber them at the ballot box.

There's no way the 65% who are AGAINST this war can out vote that 35%, right?

Can't possibly win without moving towards the 35% who are NEVER going to vote Democratic. Or so we are told.

:sarcasm: thingies...

I guess you didn't get the implied sarcasm in my post about the 35% :hi:

My ACTUAL position is that I'm damn sick and tired of the cowardly Dems worrying about that 35% -- 25% of whom wouldn't vote Dem if took 'em to Guantanamo and tortured them like Al Qaeda...

Yesterday was no :sarcasm: day in honor of Pretzledent Fucknutz.

Keep putting a bill on Bush's desk that requires a withdrawal in six months. If Bush decides to veto it, put it right back on his desk again. Who exactly is not funding the troops?

But your way is working much better.

And how many times must we explain it to the apologists? :shrug:

A bill sending the troops home is difficult to attack. A refusal to fund those troops in order to force their return is very easy to attack. Based on how easily the "support the troops!" mindset has become set in people's minds, and how readily the media will ape the RNC line on funding bills, it is a morally fantastic but politically dangerous strategy. The reason it "can't" happen is because the weak-willed Dems from conservative districts/states will -never- sign on for such behavior based on the above reasons. It's theoretically possible, sure.

'course, the worst possible option could be just choosing to play along with bush... seeing how congressional poll numbers are wayyyyy down.

still, its not like they are going to die. They are safe in DC --- home of great american restaurants.

An expanded Democratic majority and/or Democratic president would give us the best chance of getting out. Which is worth voting for, in my view.

war is good business, after all.

Get good liberal Dems in there. Ones who are not beholden and have a spine.

It is the REAL DIFFICULT WORK of politics. Actually, of citizenship.

Time to do it, don't ya think?

PERIOD.

So glad to see it picking up some steam. Let it be seen that the republicans cannot get enough votes to continue funding the occupation-war...Not that democrats can't get enough votes to withdraw the troops. Dems have what Bush wants...not the other way around. Dems have always had it in their power to end this fiasco but they've have been playing the "victim" as if they have no other choice and the media has been acting the same way. They have tried everything else but impeachment and this is the only other way to force Bush to end the occupation.
Thanks for posting.

It will just force the regime to go off the books. We've seen this film before.

It's stunning how the Euphemedia and the DC Dems keep refusing to believe that this gang is exactly what they claim to be, the arrogators of monarchical power.

Only Impeachment holds even the potential to shorten/stop the war by removing the war mongers. And at least the attempt would be an honest reckoning with reality.

They must force the GOP cowards to defend torturers, FISA-criminals, and terrorizers of Americans (via bomb threat of "Mushroom Clouds!").

It is our only moral, patriotic option.

---

Who exactly was trying to "stay the course" and had to be stopped by defunding?

---

If Pelosi let's Bush new push for funding for war come to the floor, it will pass.
The only way to stop this war is to stop this war is to defund it --

i love her dearly, but even i know a load of fearmongering tripe when i hear it. hearing this "it'll strand the troops" bullshit with a current 1/2 trillion DoD budget is absolutely laughable. no general will obey a suicidal order of leaving their troops stranded on the mere whim of the Commander and Chief -- none, zero, zip, nada, cannot happen. it doesn't matter what the media thinks or says at that point because every military leader will pack up their troops and just move them to another base. over and done and not a shot fired or ballot casted. it's just a bullshit scare tactic to sit on our hands and wait for the next elections, and i ain't having it anymore. who gives a shit what the media says when the democrats would single-handedly remove our troops from iraq by simply closing the purse. screw this super majority bullshit -- republicans never needed that, and neither do we if we have even an ounce of intestinal fortitude and a dollop of remedial civics.

"hearing this "it'll strand the troops" bullshit with a current 1/2 trillion DoD budget is absolutely laughable."

Correct-amundo!!!

Have you written to your congressman and your senators? We all need to email them and let them know what we want them to do on this issue. The more they hear from us the better.

This is what I sent on Tuesday Morning....

Congressman,
After listening to parts of Petraus/Crocker report over these last few days, I am more convinced that no end is in sight for our brave young men and women deployed in this ill-conceived war based upon lies and half truths. I urge You and your colleagues to refuse to continue to fund operations in Iraq and thereby force the Administration to bring the troops home. Do not pass legislation with a time table or benchmarks, do not pass stop gap measures requiring additional reports, do not pass legislation that allegedly "supports the troops". Simply send NO more money.
There is no question of failure in Iraq. We have failed and that failure started on the day the Bush White House chose to lie to the American people and their elected representatives in order to start a war based upon whole cloth. Please put an end to this madness.

Thank You Very Much,
Sincerely,

We should take a play from the Republican's playbook. That is exactly what they would do.

shut it all down

SweePea says, thank you uncle swag!

The question is are there 41 people in the Senate who will push for the war to end.

FAIR must really trust Bush if they believe he would bring the troops home because Congress cut off funding. Between White House discretionary funds, intelligence departments, the Pentagon, existing defense contracts, the emergency response funds, and the money already in the pipeline for the troops, Congress could shut down government completely and Bush could still keep the troops there through the rest of his tenure. Congress could not maintain a shutdown for that long.

FAIR is just dangerously wrong on this one. We need intelligence, not hack jobs based on wishful thinking.

Just don't vote to fund the war. Don't give bush a chance to turn it down. Don't give them the opportunity ....

I'm so sick of the media running this country.

DR

and the public paid a high price in terms of right wing federal judges in the Supreme Court.

So, now that the filibuster has been fought for and paid for, why will they not use it?

The Democrats don't really want what they say they want or they are totally inept at getting what they want.

They need to force the Pukes to actually fillibuster and not just threaten it.