Pelosi Claims She Has No Power to End Occupation, Promises CNN She'll Never Impeach

[alkemical]

Pelosi Claims She Has No Power to End Occupation, Promises CNN She'll Never Impeach (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27168)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3ZL8-XQsgiA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3ZL8-XQsgiA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Crushaholic]

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...

[ant1999e]

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...

If only everyone would realize this.

[BroncoBuff]

Coward ... so many Republicans have publicly flirted with jumping ship on this war, including even John Warner. but Pelosi and that milquetoast Harry Reid don't get out there aggresively enough to push them and give them cover if they do switch.

Kinda like that scene on "Rising Sun" where Sean Connery goes ballistic in front of the Japanese executives - his loud acting gave the junior Japanese guy cover to act.

LABF - where's that Democratic cartoon where the donkeys are scared to see a spine? :~ohyah!:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What she said is exaclty true! Congress cannot end the Bush cartel invasion and occupation because they don't have enough of a majority to overcome the warhawk Republicans. Very easy to understand if you have any inkling on how basic math works.

[Denver Crush]

Impeachment should be on the table.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...

Spot on.

[Traveler]

Coward ... so many Republicans have publicly flirted with jumping ship on this war, including even John Warner. but Pelosi and that milquetoast Harry Reid don't get out there aggresively enough to push them and give them cover if they do switch.

Kinda like that scene on "Rising Sun" where Sean Connery goes ballistic in front of the Japanese executives - his loud acting gave the junior Japanese guy cover to act.

LABF - where's that Democratic cartoon where the donkeys are scared to see a spine? :~ohyah!:

Wish there was a way to temporarily do away with the seniority system. I'd $hitcan both Reid and Pelosi.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...What a croc of crap! People voted for Democrats because they were tired of being lied to, having Republicans spending completely unchecked and as a general **** you to Bush. They've have been in office barely 6 months and you have disgruntled Republicans like Crushaholic looking for any excuse to criticize them because they haven't over come Bush and his cronies to stop the cluster**** in Iraq yet.

[Garcia Bronco]

People voted for other candidates for a variety of reasons which may include troop withdrawl.

[Crushaholic]

What a croc of crap! People voted for Democrats because they were tired of being lied to, having Republicans spending completely unchecked and as a general **** you to Bush. They've have been in office barely 6 months and you have disgruntled Republicans like Crushaholic looking for any excuse to criticize them because they haven't over come Bush and his cronies to stop the cluster**** in Iraq yet.

There were some people on this site (You might have been one of them) who wanted the Democrats to start the impeachment process the day they took over in January. It's clear that nothing's happening at the moment. Are you still holding out hope that Bush is impeached?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

There were some people on this site (You might have been one of them) who wanted the Democrats to start the impeachment process the day they took over in January. It's clear that nothing's happening at the moment. Are you still holding out hope that Bush is impeached?Getting Bush out of there one day early would be worth the effort but I responded to this comment by you...

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen.

Apparently, it sucks to be "one of those people" who voted for a losing Republican Congressman and Bush.

[Rohirrim]

It's clear to me that Pelosi just wants to play a petty political blame game rather than to take the heroic actions she could take to end this war. It sounds to me like it is more important to her that she have somebody to blame than it is to really put her ass on the line.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's clear to me that Pelosi just wants to play a petty political blame game rather than to take the heroic actions she could take to end this war. It sounds to me like it is more important to her that she have somebody to blame than it is to really put her ass on the line.

Maybe she was just selling you something that she wouldnt buy?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF - where's that Democratic cartoon where the donkeys are scared to see a spine? :~ohyah!:

Traveler beat me to it.

This thread is definitely the right place for it.

[W*GS]

Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats are cowards. They're putting petty party politics before country - which is something some folks think only the GOP does...

[Rigs11]

What she said is exaclty true! Congress cannot end the Bush cartel invasion and occupation because they don't have enough of a majority to overcome the warhawk Republicans. Very easy to understand if you have any inkling on how basic math works.

Actually they don't even have to bring it to vote.Pelosi can refuse to bring a bill forward for money.If there is nothing to vote on then nothing passes and Dumbya doesn't get the money to continue the war. Unfortunately he is such a loony that he would leave the troops there and then blame the Dems for not giving him the money.

[Spider]

Impeaching is a joke , all it does is take up time and money ....... and for what ? we all already know Bush is full of **** , ****ing lied to us , got us into a war we didnt ****ing need , history will show that bush is dip**** ......

[Spider]

Actually they don't even have to bring it to vote.Pelosi can refuse to bring a bill forward for money.If there is nothing to vote on then nothing passes and Dumbya doesn't get the money to continue the war. Unfortunately he is such a loony that he would leave the troops there and then blame the Dems for not giving him the money.

there is already alot of money in the pentagon , cutting the Iraqi funds will only lead to Bush taking Money from somewhere else in the military .......
the reason Bush and the reps scoff at the cutting the money crap ......
the Pentagon has the money to see the war through Bush's term if they are forced to ...... Meanwhile we would hear on TV how the troops are in danger and not equipped cause the lack of money

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually they don't even have to bring it to vote.Pelosi can refuse to bring a bill forward for money.If there is nothing to vote on then nothing passes and Dumbya doesn't get the money to continue the war. Unfortunately he is such a loony that he would leave the troops there and then blame the Dems for not giving him the money.

That's correct.

The Democrats even interviewed a panel of constitutional law scholars before the '06 elections to ascertain whether or not this recourse was open to them, and the answer was affirmative.

Pelosi and the rest of these chicken sh*ts are full of it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Impeaching is a joke , all it does is take up time and money ....... and for what ? we all already know Bush is full of **** , ****ing lied to us , got us into a war we didnt ****ing need , history will show that bush is dip**** ......

I disagree.

There's still enough time left on the clock for Smirk & Sneer to do some serious damage, e.g., attack Iran, cause a major economic meltdown, etc.

I'd rather spend the time and money impeaching these vermin than spend it on another one of their bullsh*t wars of choice or reverse Robin Hood swindles.

Further, it's our DUTY to hold these crooks accountable for their high crimes and misdemeanors - it's not a question of convenience.

http://www.bartcop.com/crim-insane-2a.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When Will the Innocent Bystander Fable Stop?

By David Sirota

I just finished up an appearance on Warren Olney's national radio show (you will be able to find the archived recording here probably in a few hours). On it, I debated (among others) former DLC strategist Ed Kilgore, who quite literally regurgitated the Innocent Bystander Fable, word for nauseating word. He claimed that Democrats in Congress need to find total unity to do anything to stop the war, that they don't have 60 votes, and oh the Congress is so closely divided, yadda yadda. It is a false and misleading meme, and I called him on it, telling him that the Innocent Bystander Fable is deliberately dishonest (and by the way, this subject is going to be the major topic of my next nationally syndicated newspaper column, out Friday).

Kilgore first feigned outrage that someone would call a factual lie "deliberately misleading" (and again folks, claiming Democrats have no power to stop the war or that they need any more than 41 Senate votes to stop the war is a lie - and a deliberate one coming from people who are "experts" and who thus know precisely how the Congress works). He then was forced to admit that yes, in fact, it is correct that if Democrats put together 41 Senate votes for a filibuster or - perhaps even easier - if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to bring a blank check war funding bill to the floors of their respective chambers, Democrats would be able to ultimately stop the war. But while the Democrats' rhetoric is certainly different than Republicans, their actions really are not. The only thing they have consistently done when it comes to Iraq is try to pass the buck, and worse, successfully pass blank checks (like today's new one).

Now, Ed and all the other brilliant Democratic "strategists" in Washington who have gotten us to this disastrous point would counter that polls aren't clear on whether the public really supports Congress using its power of the purse to stop the war. I agree, the polls aren't - but those polls are a snapshot in a vacuum.

To date, there has been absolutely no concerted campaign by Democrats or even by the major media-focused antiwar organizations in Washington to educate the public on why Congress using its power of the purse is the responsible way to end the war. No, everyone inside the 50-square mile radius of Washington, D.C. - politicians, activists, reporters, pundits, everyone - wants us to believe that Democrats are just Innocent Bystanders, that they have no power to do anything, and that, in fact, the Constitution does not include Article 1, Section 9 specifically stating "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

It is a lie being perpetrated on the American public - and if folks in Washington are confused about why the public is so disgusted with Congress and with Democrats, it is because the public has figured out when it is being lied to. We got burned once by the WMD claims - we aren't getting fooled again. The public understands the message in this YouTube video:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U7raAL3Wld0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U7raAL3Wld0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

What this all shows is the mindset of the Democratic apparatus in Washington, D.C. They react to polls. They don't believe in actually spending political capital to move polls on issues - they really only believe in spending political capital on moving polls on individual candidate and party approval ratings - but again, not on issues. They react to snapshots in a vacuum, veering one way and then veering another way, and then they have the nerve to somehow wonder why the public thinks they stand for nothing.

How many more Americans have to die before Democrats stop pushing the Innocent Bystander Fable and pretending they can't do anything? How hated does the Democratic Party have to be by the public before Democrats stop listening to their Washington "strategists," muster the tiniest shred of courage and use the constitutional power they were given on Election Day 2006?

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10149

[TailgateNut]

It would suck if I was one of those people who voted Democrat in the last election to get the troops home. I'm sure you guys truly thought change would happen. I remember when the Republicans took over in 1995. I thought change for the better (from my perspective) would occur in Congress. In reality, it just meant the Republicans were able to wield the power and get the lion's share of lobbyist money. The faces may change, but nothing else actually changes in Washington...


No, actually it would suck to be one of the blind, deaf and dumb who cast a vote (and then a second vote) for Dubya knowing how utterly incompetent he was and is. Knowing how he lies at every oportunity. Knowing how he has damaged our country. Knowing how he disregards the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That sucks! Thats un-patriotic! Thats un-American!

[Rohirrim]

The ultimate irony; The Dems have become Nixon! They are stretching out this war for political benefit. It's more important to them that they be able to blame this war on the Republicans in the next election cycle than it is to stop it.

[Spider]

I disagree.

There's still enough time left on the clock for Smirk & Sneer to do some serious damage, e.g., attack Iran, cause a major economic meltdown, etc.

I'd rather spend the time and money impeaching these vermin than spend it on another one of their bullsh*t wars of choice or reverse Robin Hood swindles.

Further, it's our DUTY to hold these crooks accountable for their high crimes and misdemeanors - it's not a question of convenience.

http://www.bartcop.com/crim-insane-2a.jpg
I think attacking Iran will come no matter what party is in charge........... yes it is our duty , but nail him when he leaves office ........ dont attack while he has all the protection of the office

[Spider]

The ultimate irony; The Dems have become Nixon! They are stretching out this war for political benefit. It's more important to them that they be able to blame this war on the Republicans in the next election cycle than it is to stop it.
sure does look that way

[Traveler]

The ultimate irony; The Dems have become Nixon! They are stretching out this war for political benefit. It's more important to them that they be able to blame this war on the Republicans in the next election cycle than it is to stop it.

And that is what truly disgusts me the most. I've said before that the blood of any soldier that died once they re-gained the majority is squarely on their hands.

They have numerous avenues to stop this insane war. They just choose not to because of the mistaken guidance that prolonging it will benefit them politically in the long run.

They better not be surprised come the next election they no longer have the majority. If by chance they do retain the majority, it'll only happen because voters choose the lesser of two evils.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And that is what truly disgusts me the most. I've said before that the blood of any soldier that died once they re-gained the majority is squarely on their hands.

They have numerous avenues to stop this insane war. They just choose not to because of the mistaken guidance that prolonging it will benefit them politically in the long run.

They better not be surprised come the next election they no longer have the majority. If by chance they do retain the majority, it'll only happen because voters choose the lesser of two evils.List them.

[Rohirrim]

from Foreign Policy http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3698:

Can Congress Stop the War?

FOREIGN POLICY: The U.S. Senate is debating a resolution to condemn U.S. President George W. Bush’s troop increase in Iraq. What are the legal implications?

Bruce Ackerman: None. What matters are the president’s two budgetary requests, because the president is going to have to sign something. There’s his supplemental one, which is supposed to get the Iraq War through October 1, and his Iraq request for the fiscal year 2008. With most other resolutions, even if it were not explicitly nonbinding (as the Warner resolution is), and even if it took the form of an instruction to the president, he would just veto it. So, to a significant degree, the questions of constitutional power are moot in every context except the budgetary one, where the president is going to have to sign something.

FP: So the only way for Congress to influence Iraq policy is through its budgetary power?

BA: That’s right. When Congress appropriates money, it can attach riders that can contain instructions saying, “We’ve spent $350 billion, and we hereby tell you that you can spend $150 billion more.” You can then translate that into a time limit by dividing by, say, $9 billion a month in order to get a figure for the number of months. The Congressional Budget Office could be the referee, since it’s already keeping tabs on how much money the government is spending on the military and in Iraq.

Or, you can attach an instruction of the kind that is presently more favored in Congress, saying, “You have to reduce the troops by X thousand in six months.”

FP: Wouldn’t that be considered micromanaging the commander in chief’s duties?

BA: That’s why my proposal has an advantage. Nobody can argue that simply saying, “You will not spend more than $500 billion on the Iraq war” is beyond the power of Congress. No argument at all. There will be arguments if Congress explicitly says, “You have to get out in 10 months.” But one is really the other.

Going to the constitutionality of micromanaging, in fact the bulk of scholarly opinion is clearly on one side. Congress has very broad powers to control the exercise of military force. And it is quite true that Congress hasn’t used these powers too frequently for prudential reasons—wisdom—but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

On occasion, Congress has done very, very strong things indeed. The most striking example is in the aftermath of the Civil War. Congress passed something called the General of the Army Act, which specified that the president couldn’t order his commanders in the South without having his orders countersigned by Ulysses S. Grant, who was then the general of the Army. That represented the high-water mark of congressional control of the Army. More recently, Congress forbade the use of troops in Cambodia, and then of course there was the Boland Amendment. We can argue the wisdom of these things, but there has not been an occasion where they were disobeyed. In any case, it’s better to say, “Here’s your money. You spend it in a wise way to try to win, and if you can’t win, get out prudently,” rather than have an explicit timetable.

FP: Let’s say Congress goes ahead and does what you suggest. What are the Bush administration’s options if it wants to stay in Iraq? Isn’t funding—especially in the Pentagon—somewhat fungible?

BA: No. There’s no question on saying, “You will not spend more than X dollars a month on a particular item.” The Pentagon budget is full of items like that. “You will not spend more than $10 billion on the antiballistic missile system.” They have no options. There’s no constitutional claim made by anyone in American history that the president of the United States, in any capacity whatsoever, can spend money without an appropriation from Congress.

The commander in chief may or may not have the power to ignore Congress when it says, “Don’t fight in Baghdad; fight in Basra” or “Don’t send more than 120,000 troops in.” Those are strategic decisions. But the idea that he has the right to spend money that has not been appropriated is unthinkable.

FP: What about funding for other parts of the mission in Iraq, like Iraqi security forces?

BA: Well, that all depends. For example, say the president has just made a request for $1.2 billion for more civilian funding, and let’s imagine Congress turns him down. No one would suppose he could just take the $1.2 billion off of some other budget and spend it anyway. I mean, this is just not something that you do.

FP: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has told her colleagues that if President Bush wants to take the country to war against Iran, the House of Representatives would take up a bill denying him the authority to do so. Does the House have the ability to do that?

BA: The president has to get another authorization for a war against Iran. It isn’t up to Nancy Pelosi or the House to prevent him; he doesn’t have the constitutional authority to just expand the war.

He does not have the authority to unilaterally invade Iran. I just want to hear what the arguments on the other side are. But the authorization of the use of force after 9/11 doesn’t authorize that.

FP: What about actions short of invasion: air strikes or hot pursuit?

BA: Air strikes would be an invasion. It’s an act of war of an unambiguous variety. I think that the burden is very much on the president of the United States to ask for explicit authorization for an act of war against Iran. On every major military incursion, there is an elaborate ballet where the president says he has the power to do it and the Congress says, “You don’t have the power to do it.” But both in the case of the first Iraq war and the second Iraq war, the president did in fact go to Congress for authority.

On a major incursion into another large Middle Eastern country, I believe that, when push comes to shove, the president will once again request the explicit authorization of Congress. When he was contemplating the invasion of Iraq, he was in a much stronger position politically—and he was still obliged to request authorization. And the same thing would happen again.

Bruce Ackerman is a professor of law and political science at Yale University and the author of Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006).