By their own account, putting a stop to the war is the entire reason the american public voted them into the position they're in now. So if they feel it's such a popular move, why not actually go through with it and stop the war?
As it stands, they're sitting on a big red button that says "STOP THE WAR" and they could press it at any time, but instead they're just shouting at George W. Bush to stop it for them.
I don't buy the argument that they just don't want responsibility for the consequences. If the troops pull out and something terrible happens, the pro-retreat crowd will really be held responsible anyway.
I also don't buy the argument that defunding would be "pulling the rug out" from under the troops. We wouldn't keep troops there with no funding, that's retarded. Either they defund or set some arbitrary time table, either way we're going to be packing our bags just the same.
Congress would have to impeach AND convict Bush and Cheney in order to make Pelosi President so she could order a pull-out order, and I don't see that happening. 
I'm sure one of the military types like Bloodsage could explain the whole CoC business far better than I, and how it relates to the seperation of powers under the Constitution.
ever
Kegwen fucked around with this message on 04-29-2007 at 01:49 PM.
Congress has absolute authority over the financing of the war. They can, at a moment's notice, refuse to fund the war and Bush will have no recourse. He will have no choice but to withdraw.
Nothing Bush could do can stop this - it's simply one of the checks and balances that's existed in government since the country was founded.
The vote to use this power to stop the war has come up twice and been defeated by a large majority. The limp wristed "timetable" bullshit is what they're doing instead, and is tantamount to shouting at Bush to stop the war for them.
Please explain your logic though. Why is the timetable approach "limp wristed" and how does it force Bush to do anything, except not use his veto powers (which wouldn't be much of a change from his first several years...)? Also, why should they choose the forceful approach when it is tantamount to political suicide and probably do more harm to both the US and Iraq?
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Talonus booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Please explain your logic though. Why is the timetable approach "limp wristed" and how does it force Bush to do anything, except not use his veto powers (which wouldn't be much of a change from his first several years...)? Also, why should they choose the forceful approach when it is tantamount to political suicide and probably do more harm to both the US and Iraq?
Because they have the power to stop the war and they aren't using it. They could just as easily set a time table to defund the war, too, and Bush would have no say in the matter. They are in total control of when or how quickly we leave Iraq.
They could just as easily choose a 5 year defunding process that would force a gradual withdrawl according to their own arbitrary timetable. They just... aren't, for some reason.
quote:
Maradon! fell asleep and read just about every paragraph.
Because they have the power to stop the war and they aren't using it. They could just as easily set a time table to defund the war, too, and Bush would have no say in the matter. They are in total control of when or how quickly we leave Iraq.
No, they are not. The biggest evidence of this is the fact the troops are still there. Congress cannot remove funding already granted. The money the troops are currently using is set to be depleted in April/June (depending on who you ask); that's why this bill is so important. It is to fund the troops for the next fiscal period. Even if the funds run out if no bill is passed, that does not mean Bush will be forced to immediately recall the troops. Congress cannot directly force the President to bring the troops back. There is no such thing as a Congressional Order. All they can do is indirect; hence the timetable in the spending bill Bush has promised to veto.
If Congress could order the troops home legally, they would have done so by now. But they can't because the President is Commander in Chief.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Mightion Defensor booooze lime pole over bench lick:
No, they are not. The biggest evidence of this is the fact the troops are still there. Congress cannot remove funding already granted. The money the troops are currently using is set to be depleted in April/June (depending on who you ask); that's why this bill is so important. It is to fund the troops for the next fiscal period.
The issue is that they keep voting to fund the war! If they want the war to end why do they keep voting to pay for it in full?
quote:
Even if the funds run out if no bill is passed, that does not mean Bush will be forced to immediately recall the troops.
Yeah, it kinda does. War expenses are a line item on the federal budget - if congress cuts that, the president would have no choice but to pull out or yank funds from other areas of government but, guess what, congress would have to approve that too.
For all their protesting and declaring the war a quagmire, the democrat controlled congress is still giving the president every dime he needs to continue the war ad infinitum, with the only caveat being a strategic decision (the arbitrary timeline) - strategic decisions being the sole providence of the commander in chief as you keep pointing out.
That doesn't seem a little wierd?
quote:
Congress cannot directly force the President to bring the troops back.
Defunding the war would directly force the president to withdraw. That is the definition of the power of the purse granted to congress.
quote:
Maradon! enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Because they have the power to stop the war and they aren't using it. They could just as easily set a time table to defund the war, too, and Bush would have no say in the matter. They are in total control of when or how quickly we leave Iraq.
Bush has already guaranteed that he will veto anything mentioning withdrawal or timetable. Enough votes are needed to override these vetoes, but many democrats are understandably wary of voting in favor of any bills that touch funding because it allows folks to say "They want to take money from the troops! They don't care about the troops!". It's a catch 22 situation. They can get what they want, but it involves political suicide.
Really, do you want them to pull out troops in overnight? Should they tell Bob from Toledo he should expect to see his wife Tuesday because they're pulling everyone out of Iraq tomorrow? That's just fucking stupid. There need to be timetables to pull troops out, which isn't going to involve instant pull outs.
quote:
Blindy. probably says this to all the girls:
Because simply pulling the troops out right now would be a massive mistake?
Bingo. We're stuck. Pull out, Iraq collapses. Stay in, people bitch.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Blindy. who doth quote:
Because simply pulling the troops out right now would be a massive mistake?
Even assuming there were no democrats advocating an immediate and unconditional withdrawal (there are: john murtha and harry reid notably) this still doesn't answer the question.
Congress has the power to defund the war, now or later. They have the power to set a time table to defund the war. They have the power to gradually defund the war over the course of five or ten or fifty years. They aren't doing any of that. Why not?
Not only that but Bush could play dirty with withheld funds. Rationing troops further, crippling logistics, all in a play to "Make what we have last as long as possible." I am not saying he would do this, but he could, and that is justification enough to push it away from the real reason.
Last but not least, it is not in the Democrats best interest, politically, to have the war in Iraq end. As long as Bush keeps the war going then the Democrats have a shameful, if popular, soapbox from which to cry from. In other words the war is going to continue until January 2009, at the very earliest. Tyewa Dawnsister fucked around with this message on 04-29-2007 at 08:06 PM.
Honestly, that's the only scenario that makes sense to me, too.
Well, way to vote, guys. Ending the war was what the democrats rode on in November and here they are, doing nothing about it.
I didn't vote for anyone in my local congressional district last year, the democrat was corrupt and under investigation for taking kickbacks and the republican supported banning abortion. Neither was worth voting for, so neither got my vote.
In reality though, while we should expect more from our represenatives, if you take part in the political process then none of this should come as a surprise, from either side.
quote:
From the book of Tyewa Dawnsister, chapter 3, verse 16:
Wow politicans grandstanding and being demogauges for red herring issues, nothing new here.I didn't vote for anyone in my local congressional district last year, the democrat was corrupt and under investigation for taking kickbacks and the republican supported banning abortion. Neither was worth voting for, so neither got my vote.
In reality though, while we should expect more from our represenatives, if you take part in the political process then none of this should come as a surprise, from either side.
If you don't vote you don't get to complain.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Robocop:
If you don't vote you don't get to complain.
I voted, I just didn't vote on that race, as they were the only two options avaliable. If forced to vote I would have voted for the corrupt democrat.
