My message to Pelosi and Co....Grow some Spine and....

[yourout]

do the right thing. Bush can not be allowed to unilaterally attack Iran. At some point you have to lay it on the line even if you think there will be a political backlash. Show some courage and do the right thing.

Edited for anatomical correctness.

[Maat]

1. How about some 'spine?'

Anyway, I fear that individual Democrats receive too much money from the warmongering extremists in AIPAC to do the right thing.

[jobycom]

2. What kind of balls?

:shrug:

[EVDebs]

4. titanium ! nt

[jobycom]

15. I thought the shafts were titanium, not the balls.

[EVDebs]

24. What are ben-wa balls made outta ?

http://www.answers.com/topic/ben-wa-balls

Send your congressperson a pair !

[jobycom]

26. Ohhh... I get it. Pelosi needs THOSE balls! Not sure how they will make her brave, though.

[EVDebs]

31. This DU post should embolden her. I don't know why they don't investigate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=394339&mesg_id=396755

[MGKrebs]

3. What exactly do you mean?

A resolution that outlines conditions under which an attack is acceptable or not?

Cut funding?

[yourout]

6. Put him on notice....attach Iran without congressional approval...

and you will be impeached.

[MGKrebs]

10. Bush could care less about that, and it wouldn't stop the attack anyway...

unless his own party opposed him too.

If we want to stop the attack, we need France and Germany and Russia and China to grow the spines.

[Dr Fate]

13. That's it!!!!- We will blame France, China & Germany for not having the spine!!!

I was hoping someone would provide the internal talking points to let DEMS off the hook!

Wheeew- that was close!!!

[Dr Fate]

7. How about a good, "old-fashioned" Declaration of War- like we used to do it?

Or would that concept be "too radical" for moderates & swing-voters to understand?

[blondeatlast]

12. I'm beginning to think that the swing voters be damned--they go where the wind blows IF

they vote at all. Why are those who haven't got an iota of ideology allowed to dictate to the rest of us every effing election?

I'm officially old--I remember when American government served her people reasonably well.

[Dr Fate]

16. I was half joking- I believe Swing-voters would not mind if Congress has approval over wars.

Especially after you tell them a few times that it's in the Constitution, and that it is the best way to hold your local people accountable.

I guess DEMS think it is easier to go along with Bush/media than to take a few minutes to explain basic civics to folks.

[MGKrebs]

21. So your understanding would be that the Prez can't commit troops

unless the Congress declares war?

I'm pretty sure that has been shown to be not the case.

Do you have another suggestion?

[Dr Fate]

27. I admit, I have no suggestions that aid Bush, the DLC, the media or wimpy DEMS.

The Constitution requires a Declaration of War- your average citizen has no problem with that. In fact, your average citizen thought he heard that in 8th grade civics class once or twice.

And why would you frame it as "commit troops"- lets drop the semantics tricks and frame this in everyday language- we are talking about "Going to war with Iran"- not mere commission of troops.

In any event, what problem do you have with Congress requiring Bush to seek approval before going to war? It seems more consistent with the Constituion than whatever "the case" has been in the last few decades.

[MGKrebs]

37. I do not disagree with you in principle, it's just that

for some reason, we haven't declared war since 1941, and we have been in plenty of "wars" since then. So if we are going to find a practical, realistic way out of this mess, it looks like the solution lies somewhere other than demanding a declaration of war. Let's talk about Generals refusing illegal orders. Let's talk about other countries not letting this get any further out of hand, whether through economic sanctions or actual force against force.

Congress (or the UN or anybody else) passing more resolutions is not going to stop this madman. Been there, done that. We seem to be effectively asking Congress to storm the WH and tie George up. But that's not their job and it's probably not going to happen. We elected them to make rules and follow procedures. If we want a revolution, we need to look elsewhere.

If there were a switch to turn this drama off, I wish I knew of it. But the die is cast, Pandora is out of the box, and the water under the bridge is rising fast. "We" elected this guy (allegedly) and that means we didn't do our job of creating our constituency well enough. And we are in the process of failing at that again.



"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."

[Dr Fate]

39. Thanks- and sorry for my angry tone.

Re-reading it tonight, I forgot how angry I was when I saw this today- sorry about that...

[saltpoint]

5. I bet she's good at cheeseballs for the holidays and such.

If you mean testicles, I'm no physician, but that sounds like a much trickier undertaking.

Let's aim for realizable goals.

I'm a former constituent of Nancy Pelosi's and I stand with her. She's a good soul and an effective leader.

[Dr Fate]

8. Congressional approval of war is not a "realizable goal"- even though it's in the Constitution?

Let's not GIVE UP a power we already have and them re-frame it as aiming for and attaining goals.

[saltpoint]

9. I'm speaking pro-Pelosi, not anti-Constitution.

[Dr Fate]

11. Pelosi appears to be speaking from an anti-Constitution POV.

Rahter than asserting that Congress has the power to declare war, as it says in the Constitution- she now seems to be agreeing with Bush and the DLC that congress should not have to provide such approval.

I know, I know- I need to "keep my powder dry" and "give them more rope to hang themselves with."

[saltpoint]

17. Dr Fate you know I just don't think it's very effective to demand that

a woman Speaker of the House grow balls.

That was the trigger switch of my objection to this thread.

The levers of power are out of my reach, save for one, when I show up to vote in elections local and national.

Pelosi is nobody's fool. Too many people on DU consider the House and Senate a drive-through experience, where they tell the microphone exactly what they want and expect to get it in turn for exact payment at the window. That's not how laws are made and that's not how compromise works and for the present case, it's also not how we stop this war.

Bush's war is already over; he's already lost. He knows it. If you look into his ferret face, it's clear that the smashing triumph he thought he'd have in showing the old man how a war is run isn't going to come to pass, and in fact, it was his old man's advice that held the peace, such as it was, in the Tigris Euphrates Valley. Hussein was undeniably a son of a bitch, but he oversaw a secular governmental entity. In the wake of Dubya's failure, Iraq is likely to go whole-hog extremist. Democracy was on the march in Ari Fleischer's press jargon but it was a short march and it's going to get a lot shorter.

[Dr Fate]

19. I was more concerned with the issue itself than any semantics.

"Spine" is fine with me, but I'm not here to discuss semantics.

Either Congress is "allowed" to approve of wars, or they are not.

It looks like we are saying we are not, and that we are fine with that.

[saltpoint]

23. The Constitution is not a document of absolute composition in that

it couldn't be if humans wrote it (even talented ones like Madison). The Bible is a bit of a sprawling mess, and far less focused most of the time -- did I mention it is a sprawling mess? -- and people might well interpret one passage a dozen different ways.

The Constitution is less sprawling but still a human product. Congress and the Executive Branch will be arguing long after you and I are dead and gone. They have argued since before we were born. That's the nature of the beast. We have to put on our hip waders and just plunge in, but I don't see a trend of assurances for either branch in the last 200-some years.

It's a dogfight and it may never end.

[Dr Fate]

28. None of what you said explains why DEMs are caving. Sounds kinda eloquent though.

You did make the case that people argue over what the Constitution means-noted. Good to know.

[saltpoint]

32. The best recent piece I've seen on this is here:

http://www.slate.com/id/1008290/

She's very good generally, but on Constitutional history she really shines.

[Dr Fate]

33. I havent read that yet- but I already know that it is Constitutional for congress to approve of war.

Does the article say something different?

Does the article give a good reason for letting Bush got to war in Iran without said approval from Congress?

If not, then it does not answer my concerns.

[saltpoint]

35. Well, it's very high-caliber writing. The author knows her stuff.

[Dr Fate]

38. I think average Americans would like to see some restraints placed on Bush.

It's a winner politically, and it follows the Constitutuion.

[bigtree]

14. My message to you: Stop believing media bullshit

This is a prime example of media manipulation

While there are those in Congress worried about Israel, there aren't enough to stop the coming prohibition on military action against Iran without congressional approval. IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN ON THIS BILL.

"The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier."

They didn't want to put more pressure than necessary on the Iraq bill. They are trying to get enough votes to pass their Iraq proposal. This initiaive has enough support to come up again, both in the House and in the Senate.

They didn't 'abandon anything, despite the misleading report.

[Dr Fate]

18. I see- so DEMS actually are demanding Congressional approval for Bush to invade Iran?

Good to know.

Where can I find the correct info that is contrary to the info in this artcle?

Show us where DEMS are actually going to require congressional approval.

[bigtree]

20. Webb has a bill he introduced last week in the Senate

which would require the president to come to Congress before he initiated military action against Iran.


from HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/webb-no-funds-for-iran-a_b_42869.html

Webb proposed S. 759, legislation that would prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without the express approval of Congress.

"The purpose of this legislation is to restore a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the commencement of military activities," said Webb, while introducing his bill. "The major function of this legislation is to prevent this administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress."

Webb then explained that his legislation preempts rash action on the part of George W. Bush by using the only mechanism available to Congress: the Constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such action.

"Unlike the current situation in Iraq, where cutting off funds might impede or interrupt ongoing operations, this legislation denies funding that would be necessary to begin such operations against Iran in the first place," said Webb, a highly-decorated Vietnam Veteran. "The administration's past failure to engage with Iran diplomatically in a meaningful way, coupled with what Iran could perceive as preparations for a military strike, creates a potent brew that easily could lead to miscalculation on both sides."

The scholarly Webb went on to give a brief lecture on the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the extent to which delegates carefully decided that no President should be given the power to decide with whom America should go to war or to undertake aggressive actions without the consent of Congress.

"The President's powers to initiate military action were to be for the purpose of repelling sudden attacks -- and this is the language I have used in this legislation,"

"It is time we move forward to end our military involvement in Iraq, and the path to doing so is not to widen the war into Iran. Proper robust diplomacy will enable us to bring greater stability to the region, to remove the American military from Iraq, to increase our ability to defeat the forces of international terrorism,"

"This system will not hurry us into war, it is calculated to guard against it. "It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress."

bill: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00759:

[Dr Fate]

22. "Come to congress"- But does it require ultimate approval from Congress?

I admit I dont know. If his Bill can pass and does require that, then I'm not sure why we would need to take it out of another Bill.

I just find the language here to be alarming- I have no idea why Pelosi & the DLC would want to take this language out- I would think that Congressional approval would be a good thing- you know, balance of power and all that.

[bigtree]

25. from his statement

"The major function of this legislation is to prevent this administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/webb-no-funds-for-iran-a_b_42869.html

[Dr Fate]

29. Hopefully Nancy or the DLC wont make him take that part out.

If she does not allow it to be in one bill, then I'm not sure why she would allow it in another- unless she know's Webb's wont pass one way or the other or something...

I admit it, I must be missing something here...

[yourout]

30. I hope like hell it passes with that language in it.

[Dr Fate]

34. I know- but what if Pelosi or the DLC wants it out?

Or they leave it in this one only, knowing it wont pass.

I admit I must be missing something-I cant figure out why they would let it stay in one bill, but take it out of another- either the approval measure will pass or it wont.

[ReadTomPaine]

36. Unless it's attached to a spending bill, it's going nowhere.

It needs to be attached to a bill that Bush will be compelled to pass, or it's just so much hot air.

[bigtree]

40. in your view.

It can be taken up in the Senate and passed on to the House.

But it's not true at all that it has to be attached to the spending bill that's intended to direct Bush on Iraq. They counted the votes and determined it would drag the Iraq bill down. It would be stupid to allow the debate to get dragged into an endless argument about FUTURE actions in Iran and doom an effort to stop the conflict that's raging in Iraq NOW.