Coffee added to the probability that the Democratic majority, including our Dem candidates for President, are going to give Bush more money for the occupation is burning my stomach big time this morning.
This does not have to be. Given Odom's testimony for immediate withdrawal and Crocker/Petraeus testimony being interpreted as no end in sight, I am more convinced than ever that the Democrats in Congress should be cutting off funds/or requiring withdrawal and showing the world, not to mention the voters, that they are worthy of leading us to a new way!
Isn't this what we gave money and worked for in 2006? Isn't this why I have given them money this year? Isn't it? (weeping now)
Please tell me that this time, at least, they will not write a check with no requirement for withdrawal timetable. Please?
Glad to see Barack , Biden, and Hillary get a little tougher at the hearings this week. This was good.
So lets follow this up with some action, whatcha say?
Jason Leopold, that thorn in the side of the evildoers, says that a study recently published confirmed that the Dems can use the power of the purse to stop the Bush Administration juggernaut.
Still, if Democratic lawmakers were serious about changing the direction of U.S. military operations in Iraq now, they have several legislative options at their disposal, according to a recent 52-page report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the investigative arm of Congress.
The report, "Congressional Authority to Limit U.S. Military Operations in Iraq," says that "Congress’s ability to deny funds for the continuation of military hostilities is not contingent upon the enactment of a positive law, though such a denial may take the form of a positive enactment."
You can find the full report here.
I am getting excited. Its confirmed. We don't have to worry about filibuster proofing, vetoes, etc! There are other options!
In other words, Congress can compel an end to a conflict simply by refusing to appropriate money for it. That approach would circumvent the threat of a presidential veto, which requires two-thirds majorities to override.
"Although the President has the power to veto legislative proposals, he cannot compel Congress to pass legislation, including bills to appropriate funds necessary for the continuation of a military conflict," the report says.
What I would really like to see is Obama and Clinton filibustering!
(Theoretically, Bush’s Iraq War funding could even be stopped by a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, which would require only 41 of the 100 senators to block a new appropriations bill.)
However, with the presidential campaign in full swing and with bitter memories of "soft on national security" taunts, Democratic leaders are unwilling to confront Bush on war funding.
Still, the CRS report is a reminder that Congress has the authority to contest Bush’s assertions that his commander-in-chief powers allow him to do almost whatever he wants when it comes to fighting wars.
My stomach is still burning, but I'll not give up hope, drink another cup, write a few letters to Congress, send another check to Obama, and keep on hoping. You see, I'm a Democrat.