Can Congress stop the War?

[Liberalgirl788]

I have been reading some articles on how congress could stop Bush and the neocons by pulling away the funding for the War. Nancy Pelosi and our Democrat majority must stop the killing of our troops and bring them home now!

[Mrspeeker]

1. NO

The president is the commander and chief, he can start a war anywhere around the glob without congress consent for 90 days and well after your at war, well I think we know what happens.

This actually dates back to the civil war, Lincoln waited till congress was on recess to declare war on the south, and congress couldn't stop it way back then.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

2. Oh, well you need not go back that far.

Pulling out does not solve all the problems with this thing.
And it just will not go away when the troops are pulled out-and they shall be.

In the larger picture where is it they really want to take it-in other words -just what does escalation really mean-the word Bush so richly avoids.?

When the evacuation of Vietnam was underway- Nixon sent a carrier strike force over to the Middle East to not just display force but to become force. control what comes into a country and out of it.
That was phase one of a three phase operation- that fizzeled out as a result of the watergate break-ins.

Remember those words that Nixon spoke -when the president does it,it,s not illegal?

Bush now can tell you he is no lawer ,but he can tell you what illegal means! But does he know what it means?

Because Nixon really did not know what it ment-until the day he borded the helicopter just befor he flipped his last V to the people.

It will one day have to be finished- The Bush,s will not be on the finish line.

And old hat ways about it-are history gone by.

Indeed it is all very complicated-Global warming is indeed a real thing.Lieberman lies.

And the truth catch,s up with all the liers.

And it does and it will.

[Talya in CT]

3. those sound like the lyrics of winning rap song

I like it.

[Talya in CT]

4. it is simply immoral to cut funding when the troops are in the field

It is plain common sense, if you send someone out attached to a rope, you have to keep holding the rope until they return.

There is nothing worse for the troops than a political leadership that cannot be trusted to take care of them in the field.

If the DEMS get drunk on their success and introduce/pass bills that cut funding for the troops, Bush can easily win a 3rd term.

Constitution not withstanding of course.

[Liberalgirl788]

5. Dems should stand on principle

So, we should just stand by and watch young Men & Women get killed because it will keep our party in power? Im sorry, that sounds too much like a Karl Rove approach to me. Bring the troops home!!!!

[Talya in CT]

6. Absolutely, bring the troops home

but, dont cut funding a day sooner than they are home.

There can be no talk of cutting funding until they are out of there.

[Liberalgirl788]

7. defund the war will bring the troops home

We can't just hope that George Bush will wake up some morning are realize that he is an idiot. The only way to bring the troops home is to stop funding a war that we know is wrong. We can't keep funding a war that is unjust. Tough talk and wishing is not going to stop the killing and violence. Cut the funding and Bushy has no choice but to BRING THEM HOME!

[Talya in CT]

10. suit yourself, here is a likely calendar of events

If the war is defunded to bring the troops home ...

2007 - (early) democrats swayed by public opinion and anti-war activists cut funding for the war.

2007 - (late) citing emergency executive powers the prez manages to keep many of the troops in iraq

2008 - every soldier and civilian death in iraq is blamed on democrats cutting funding for the troops

fox news routinely airs interviews with returning soldiers who say that, given the chance, they could
have finished "the job". Meanwhile, the republican front runner reminds the public why, despite their
own shortcomings, the public should never trust the democrats when it comes to national security.

2009 - The Rs take back the house, in addition to the senate which has already slipped back into
their hands. The new prez, wishes to launch a new war on Iran, the R controlled house votes for it.

2010 - The democrats are once again trying to recover control of the house on an anti-war platform,
except this prez doesnt make as many missteps, there is no "Mission Accomplished", WMD, downing
street memos or even a Katrina.
...
...

[Talya in CT]

11. anyone care to comment if this calender is way out there

buried in the left field conspiracies ?

[Nutmegger]

8. The Power of the Purse

It's time to defund and start indicting.

[Talya in CT]

9. indict, bring em home & then defund

[NewJeffCT]

12. Here are some examples of how previous wars have been stopped:

This is from a fantastic email put out by the Center for American Progress on January 9, 2007:

>>>>
Can Congress do anything about it? Some have claimed that anything other symbolic action is unconstitutional. That's false. A wide range of legal experts agree there are a range of legal options available to Congress to stop, or place conditions on, any escalation in the war in Iraq. For example, John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer and one of the staunchest defenders of executive power, noted that "the power of Congress over the budget was absolute, to such an extent that lawmakers could end the war altogether if they chose." On the other side of the political spectrum, Georgetown University Law Professor Marty Lederman agrees. A new report from the Center for American Progress illustrates that Congress has acted repeatedly over the last 35 years to ensure the conduct of military action would "strengthen American national security and reflect the concerns and will of the American people." Congress has passed bills, enacted into law, that capped the size of military deployments, prohibited funding for existing or prospective deployment, and placed limits and conditions on the timing and nature of deployments.

CAPPING TROOP LEVELS: Congress has historically exercised authority to cap U.S. troop levels in foreign conflicts. In 1974, the Foreign Assistance Act "established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within 6 months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year." In 1983, the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act "required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon." In 1984, the Defense Authorization Act "capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400." All of this legislation was enacted into law.

RESTRICTING FUNDING: Congress has also restricted funding for certain military operations for U.S. troops. In 1970, the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law, "prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces." In 1982, the Defense Appropriation Act "prohibited covert military assistance for Nicaragua." In 1994, Congress restricted the use of funds "for United States military participation to continue Operations Restore Hope in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994."All of these funding restrictions were enacted into law. Read the report for more examples.

CONDITIONING FUNDING: Alternatively, Congress has authorized military action subject to various conditions. In 1991, Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq but conditioned it on the President "certifying first that means other than war would not result in Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions." In 2001, President Bush sought authority to respond to the 9/11 attacks to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Instead, Congress limited the authority to "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned authorized committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks.