Does not seem to be a thing the Democratic Party can do to stop the Iraq "surge"

[papau]

The GOP passed the Defense Funding for this year.

The only bill for defense funding coming up is the supplemental.

Since he already has funds, Bush can use them as he sees fit for Defense, despite Congressional labeling of the specific dollars, as long as there are no specific restrictions - and there there were no restrictions on the Bill passed by the GOP a few months ago - at least that is my understanding.

There is no way to pull the plug until 10/1/07 where the funding bill for Defense can end the war by refusing to allow any funds be spent on the war - just as was done in 74 in the funding bill that effectively ended the Vietnam War.

So why is there discussion on DU about how the Democrats must use their power in Congress to stop the surge?

Or am I missing something - perhaps all we want are hearings? - if so, I am sure we will get hearings.

[Redstone]

1. Jesus, you may be right. Though I hope you're not.

Redstone

[papau]

14. I hope I am wrong, also. But I think he already has the money for this year so

we can do little until 10/1/07 and the new budget.

[ellisonz]

20. He's right.

But we are going to do phased withdrawal, not sudden withdrawal, that seems to be the consensus in Washington, and frankly I think it's right judgment.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Do you want the Democrats to keep control of Congress in 2008?

Then you better find a way to stop Bush. How about impeaching him for lying us into a war?

[pnwmom]

4. How will impeaching stop him if he isn't convicted in the Senate?

And how will we get 67 votes for conviction there?

[IndianaGreen]

7. By the time the surge fails as predicted and the troops begin to revolt

many Republicans will be ready to impeach Bush in order to save what's left of the military.

[pnwmom]

13. That could be. But we're not there yet.

It also could happen that by the time Republicans are ready to impeach him, his term will almost be over.

[Bake]

39. More like, to save their own asses up for re-election

When the surge fails, there may be Pukes ready to get rid of the little bastard, just in order to hang onto their own asses -- I mean SEATS.

Bake

[ellisonz]

21. How about impeaching Mr. Cheney...

First Cheney, then Bush if there's time before 2008.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Cheney is evil, but Bush is mentally unstable

Impeaching Cheney first will cause Bush to have a psychotic breakdown, and he has his finger on the nuclear button!

Impeach both and we will be accused of staging a coup.

I rather deal with an evil person that is rational than with one that thinks that he is G-d's anointed one.

[bdamomma]

32. not to get away from the subject but have you seen the

buzzflash article from yesterday the interview with Dr. Justin Frank, it is a must read. Bush is very dangerous and unstable.

I will post the article here:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/049

[illinoisprogressive]

3. I wonder if anything can be done

[pnwmom]

5. This won't solve the larger problem, but I understand

that Bush, at a stroke of a pen, could reinstate the draft.

Could the Democratic congress amend the Selective Service law to prevent Bush from re-activating the draft for the Iraq war? And/or without the approval of Congress?

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Yes, that's my understanding as well. Remember

that a couple of years ago, ads were run to get members for draft boards. Draft boards exist and could begin drafting men (and perhaps women) pretty quickly if he gave the order. I'm not sure Congress could do anything to stop the draft.

[Timmy5835]

43. The DRAFT is a act of Congress

Bush CAN NOT reinstate the draft, only Congress can.

[CoffeeCat]

6. Junior can do this and he will...

Unfortunately, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

He can make decisions regarding the war, as he sees fit.

Unless I'm mistaken, he doesn't need the approval of Congress to increase troop levels.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Does anyone actually think that Junior isn't loving this? The Democrats win
both the House and Senate--rejecting Junior and his sick war BIG TIME. Polls show
unprecedented disapprovals for Bush's handling of the Iraq war. What's the first thing
Junior does--as the Dem-controlled Congress hits the ground? CNN is now reporting
that Bush plans to add 40,000 troops.

This is by design. This is Junior telling America, the people who voted in 06, and
Congress--to f*** off. Junior is demonstrating to all of us, that we are irrelevant and that
he'll do as he damn well pleases.

[bdamomma]

bush is defying all of us, it may come down to us against him

if we find our backbones. Just my opinion. I hope Bush has a meltdown.

[bdamomma]

30. self delete

[Olney Blue]

8. This point was made on Countdown tonight- Defense funds in place

can be used for the slaughter, I mean "surge" of more troops into Iraq.

[papau]

15. "at least he is only surging 9000 troops" - sigh - where is the left wing media that would be

screaming -

God - I hate our "we are not right wing GOP/Corporate/Rich controlled - we just act that way" media.

[papau]

18. Only a "deficit control cut of Halliburton funds" from upcoming supplemental will

have any real impact on anything until new budget start of 10/1/07.

Why can't the Dem's get a spine and play hardball like the GOP?

[bdamomma]

31. can we call it for what it is ESCALATION

I would like to surge and accelerate bush.

[sandnsea]

10. Troops withdrawn in 1973

All that was left were troops guarding the embassy, and very few, if any, advisors. The funding in 1974 was to South Vietnam and was only cut in half, and it was after Nixon resigned and Ford took office. It had absolutely nothing to do with getting our troops out of Vietnam, it was to end the Vietnamese deaths that our money was perpetuating.

[papau]

16. I thought it officially ended funding for troops - my memory sucks - prior budget had

money for combat troops, new budget didn't was how I recall it - but you're no doubt correct that it only cut the money in half. I hate being old! :-)

[welshTerrier2]

11. of course there is ...

there's plenty the Dems can do to stop this war ... thus far, they've totally refused to do it though ...

your point about the Defense appropriation already being passed is a good one ... merely cutting off funding for continued "offensive operations" will NOT be sufficient to stop the insane escalation although i still think it's the right thing to do ...

what the Dems need to do, if they had the stomach for it and i don't have much faith in them these days, is to take their case to the American people and say that it's time for bush to "START PAYING FOR HIS WAR" ... it's time for the Dems to say that it's wrong to borrow to pay for the war ... all this does is dump a generation or two worth of debt on the young people in this country ... no kid wants that; no parent wants that! and for what? more of the same crap with daily deaths and an Iraqi nation in horrible turmoil? bush doesn't have a leg to stand on and his credibility is totally gone ...

the Dems should threaten to pay for the war out of "republican programs" ... you know which programs they use to pad the bottom lines of their friends in the military-industrial complex and the oil industry? Dems should tell bush that if he does his escalation, there are going to be windfall profit taxes for the record profits Big Oil has enjoyed because bush has destabilized the Middle East ... see how he likes that one ... and the Dems should tell him that we are not only going to "rollback his tax cuts" for the rich, we are going to triple their taxes ... they are in the BEST POSITION to pay for BUSH'S WAR ...

and then if mr. bush wants to plod ahead, it will be his "favorite charities" that can pay for his blunderings ... will the Dems play hardball? i doubt it ... oh how i wish they would ... they don't need to just criticize bush; they need to stop him ... and if they can't stop him, they should make him bear the cost of his madness ...

[papau]

17. I agree - Dems need a spine - deficit control requires cutting favorite GOP spending so as to fund

Iraq war (we can't get past a veto so killing the tax cuts is out).

[bdamomma]

33. wow, yes, hit them in the pocketbook, they did steal enough.

yes, rollback the tax cuts. hit those criminals hard.

[pnwmom]

12. k & r

We need some creative thinkers.

[LynneSin]

19. My thoughts on the surge and don't flame me too hard when I say this

We need to get out of Iraq and with the current level of troops that doesn't seem to be happening at all. I thought we were suppose to turn the training over to Iraq police and perhaps some extra troops might help.

NOW - if we do a surge, and I could see it happening, it should come with a deadline. We add about 20k more troops with the condition that in six months we start pulling home all of our troops and perhaps get the UN involved with any further issues especially with getting those oil fields pumping oil again (Bring a thriving economy into the mix and the civil war might wear itself out).

No commitment for a deadline then no additional troops. Enough said.

I'm fearful we're gonna get a surge in troops so if we're stuck with it, let's negotiate a few things into the deal that can help end this war!

[MindPilot]

23. That's the only way I could support a "surge".

The additional troops are sent in with the singular purpose of being essentially a rescue team. The mission? Get everyone involved in the occupation out.

[LynneSin]

24. They should serve a specific purpose and that could be a good one

Or perhaps used to train Iraqi's to handle the situation themselves - getting them setup to do the job, which would also help get our troops home.

I don't want to just send over 20K pawns of the Bush Regime. They need a purpose and then a timeline to get them and everyone else out of Iraq

[IndianaGreen]

29. I don't agree with you very often, LynneSin, but this is a damned good idea!

Link the surge to a date certain to begin troop withdrawals. Bush won't go for it, but at least the Democrats won't be adopting Iraq as their war.

[MindPilot]

22. If the Dem's can't stop it, then they need to step back...

and let whatever happens be completely and totally on Bush's back. Make it Bush's war, Bush's fuck-up, and Bush's responsibility to fix.

[seabeyond]

27. this is how i see it. n/t

[bdamomma]

34. oh yes, because they will throw this shit right back to the Dems

to clean up, they (repigs) always throw the blame to someone else and never themselves, and never admit to their mistakes. Bush doesn't know how to think he is quite impulsive and just "relies on his gut feeling" doesn't that say it all?

[HughBeaumont]

41. Well, therein lies the problem . . .

How do you pin the responsibility on someone who's absolutely incapable of accepting it or admitting wrongdoing; and also someone who, unfortunately for humanity, ru(i)ns this country?

[Zynx]

25. We could try to pass a resolution forbidding him from increasing the number

of troops present in Iraq or increasing them past a certain point.

[seabeyond]

26. this is what has gotten me bothered last 24 hours reading post. demands

of things the congress cannot do. DEMANDS that they do something they cannot do. and expected to be taken seriously. when i ask what they expect congress to do to get troops out i am told throw a hissy fit... like that is going to accomplish what? we have to work with what we got. period. that is reality

whether it be proposing a timeline or impeachment, both will take time. impeachment, there must be investigations. proposal to withdraw must get votes. we are not large majority in the senate.

[bdamomma]

35. like it or not, there will be many investigation committees formed

now only if they can get the information they deserve to see, this regime has kept everything away from those ranking committee members and from us. High crimes and misdemeanors is right.

[seabeyond]

36. yes ... thru investigation. and yes i like it. and that is procedure.

it is appropriate. i suggest that wh wont be cooperative in handing documents over any more today than they were yesterday.... and i hope dems kick wh ass on that.

but... any investigation will take time. and people are yelling for shit to happen now, yesterday... instead of what seems to be the obvious, an investigation is required.

[bdamomma]

37. there will be many investigations from Katrina to 9/11 now this

should be very interesting, we have keep the pressure on them.

[seabeyond]

38. i prefer to approach it another way. they have stated they are anxious

for investigation. i will let them get sworn in, settled into their position and see if they do it all by themselves without pressuring them, especially if they dont need it. just simple respect. if they prove they are not going to follow thru, then i will address it. i am not into preemptive punishment. punishing before deserved

[Marie26]

40. That's right.

I guess it's just making a statement that Congress does not support this "surge".

[leftofthedial]

42. this is the cover the congressional Dems need

to keep from having to actually take a stand on Iraq.

after all, the repukes might use that to attack them prior to the 2008 elections.