|
She, and the Dems in the House, can limit the spending of the war. A "surge" means more money. That's how we stop it. We deny ANY NEW FUNDS, but agree to fund existing operations for a specific period --- say until January 2009. Therefore, we LIMIT FUNDS to existing operations and no more. "Build a fence" as Jane Harmon wrote yesterday.
Being in charge of Congress makes a world of difference. Bush can no longer establish the parameters of debate and budget. We will.
I disagree with you about how "powerful" previous arguments of "supporting the troops" are. We can make the same argument against Bush. People want out of this war, they don't believe it's "winnable" or think we should escalate. The public sides with us now. Bush has lost control of Iraq in every sense. That leaves a vacuum for us to fill. If the Democratic Congress is serious, and unapologetic, about ending the war, then this is the opportunity to show it. If the Republicans should use this as an issue, then we open up the entire can of worms regarding Bush's handling of the war, his lack of preparation and planning, as well as the lies he told to get us involved in the first place.
We can hold hearings in both the Foreign Relations Committee and in the House Appropriations Committee. Many Generals are on record saying that they don't believe a "surge" will work. We call them, and other like-minded experts, to testify and use that as the springboard to introduce our proper response. We fight for ENDING THE WAR, and push Bush to do so.
The Bully pulpit is a powerful thing, and that's something we finally have. Don't underestimate it.
|