Life quickly gets a lot harder for White House

[UpInArms]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON — Less than 100 days into the new Congress, Capitol Hill's Democratic leaders have set in motion two constitutional confrontations with a White House unaccustomed to such challenges.

•A House Judiciary subcommittee authorized subpoenas Wednesday to force several of President Bush's closest aides to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors. The Senate Judiciary Committee will follow suit today, said that panel's chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

•The Senate and House have held a series of debates and votes on opposing Bush's plans to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Another may come before week's end: House leaders are trying to pass a bill that ties continued funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to a September 2008 deadline for troop withdrawal. Bush is threatening a veto.

Both moves raise constitutional questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government and underscore how much the atmosphere in the nation's capital has changed since voters gave Democrats control of Congress.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-21-showdown-analysis_N.htm

[ROakes1019]

1. effect of veto

This question has been bothering me: if Bush vetoes the supplemental bill, how will he get money to continue his war? Is he simply planning to send the bill back and hope the Congress will relent and let him have his money without any conditions? How likely is that to happen?

[yodermon]

2. Exactly my thought as well.

* has no clue on how to deal with the opposition party in the majority. Sorry bubs, the jig is up.

[UpInArms]

3. maybe he'll begin ruling by pantomime?

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." - Governing Magazine, July, 1998

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier; just so long as I'm the dictator." - Washington D.C. December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." - Business Week, July 30, 2001

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - Rochester NY, May 24, 2005

[klyon]

5. don't forget "money trumps peace"

all unbelievable if they weren't on tape

[Hekate]

8. When/where was that pic of Bush taken? What a hostile little Caligula he is...

...unless it's another photoshopped thingie just to demonstrate how hostile he is...

Hekate

[Tamyrlin79]

6. Very likely, in fact.

Progressives were asked to vote for this supplemental simply because it is the strongest we could do at this point. Progressives were told that if this bill fails, then what we will get is a budget that has NO conditions rather than no budget at all. Thus, the expectation is that if it is vetoed, you either have to pass a new bill the administration will accept OR you have to override the veto (good luck with that). Passing no bill at all is not currently on the table.

Unless you honestly think the Democrats have enough spine NOT to fund the war in the face of all the "Support the Troops" crap? I certainly wish they did, but if they were that committed to it, then setting a firm date for withdrawal and cutting off funding completely would be easily passed rather than like pulling teeth.

Personally, I wish that the congress would just sit on its heels, post veto, and refuse to authorize anything other than what they have already authorized. It wouldn't shut down the government, but it would shut down the war machine. But, at that point, I'd bet Bush would keep it going anyway and blame congress for not supporting the troops and for any troops that died during that timeframe. It would be a very risky political position, for both the Dem congress and Bush.

[Toots]

7. It really wouldn't even shut down the war machine

Soldiers pay and meals and uniforms and bullets are already paid for in the annual defense budget. What isn't completely paid for is Halliburton. That mostly comes from "emergency" Iraq war funding......Remember Iraq war funding has been collected as "emergency supplemental spending". Hell it isn't even listed in the Budget. When they say our National Deficity is 350 billion they aren't even counting the 100 billion spent in Iraq.. Like a 12 billion dollor cold hard cash heist in front of the entire world. Boy I bet they brag about that one. 363 tons of hundred dollar bills. Four C-4 Cargo Jets loaded with pallet loads of hundred dollar bills, all just sort of vanished and no one knows anything....

[hlthe2b]

4. it can't get hard enough...

Do not stop... continue onward, with no hesitation, until the entire cabal is behind bars, wearing orange jumpsuits (or whatever the color de jeur might be for the Hague, in the case of Bush*-Cheney)