OT: Diary -- Webb amendment would bar funding for war with Iran

[beachmom]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/5/163840/0168

Edited to add: Kerry needs to co-sponsor this. This is a very good idea, and as I wrote in the post, this was the first major action during the Vietnam era that Congress took -- trying to stop a widening war.

[ProSense]

1. One thing is different from Vietnam:

Bush! He is defying Congress

Any legislation that is enacted needs to be binding and specifically forbid Bush to use the military for certain actions. He will simply divert funds from elsewhere.

A number of Constitutional experts are looking at Bush, his actions and what Congress can and should do.

If Webb's bill addresses these issues, not just cutting funding, I would say Kerry should sponsor it.

[beachmom]

2. I haven't read the bill, but this would puzzle me if he diverted funds

like that. I mean a budget is a budget, and you can't use monies for one thing for another. Legally, that is. So if funding is forbidden for this, and Bush does it anyway, he'll be breaking the law.

Edit: still, I like this bill and think Kerry should co-sponsor it. If you read that TAP article, a lot of the bills were compromised and not as good as they liked, but it sent a message loud and clear and affected what Nixon did. I agree with you that Bush is a big problem, but him acting illegally should not prevent the Senate from taking up this amendment.

[ProSense]

3. Agree! n/t

[beachmom]

4. Hey Prosense -- do you have the IWR signing statement handy?

Some Clarkie at the end is saying the IWR does not allow for an attack on Iran. I think the problem was in the signing statement (I think that's what Webb said). Here is the comment:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/3/5/163840/0168/64#c64

[ProSense]

5. It's because he

invoked the War Powers Act:

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

Snip...

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

[karynnj]

6. There's actually a Bush precedent on illegally diverting the money

He diverted money approp[riated for the war on terror vs Afghanistan to initally put thousands of military people in the Gulf as the first stage of Iraq. (and because we couldn't wast e them being there - he attacked when he did.)

[beachmom]

7. You're right. But if the Senate explicitly forbids it, that makes it

harder for him to get away with.

Unfortunately (sigh), I am realizing the odds are against us even on this amendment. Tim Johnson is still too ill and Lieberman won't vote for it. So . . . we need two GOP votes for this thing to pass. That is tough odds. I hope there are two of them up for re-election in '08 who get scared and vote for the Webb amendment.

[TayTay]

8. It is a long tough slog to get anything done.

The Republicans are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into opposing this war. that is a long-haul deal.

[beachmom]

9. Yep. You're right. But it's important that we put real measures like

Webb's amendment here, Kerry's bill, Obama's (maybe they can combine since they're so similar) up to a vote. The idea being -- hey, we'd love to put this stuff through but the Republicans love this war and keep blocking it. Then we target those foot draggers in '08. Either way we win -- either by turning GOPers into doves or defeating them in election (okay, call me the eternal optimist but this, to me, should be the strategy). The American people oppose cutting off funding for troops in harm's way but not for wars that haven't been started yet, which is why Webb's amendment is appropriate.

Edited to add: there was another motive for me to put that diary up. I wanted to give it to the whiners (and, hell, the VFP while we're at it) who DEMAND the war end TODAY and bash all Democrats who won't vote to cut off funding. So here was a Democrat cutting off funding . . . for a war that hasn't started yet. It kind of halfway shuts them up, and I intend to use this amendment as ammo when they start bashing Dems. Of course, I hope all '08 hopefuls back this amendment.

[TayTay]

12. 100% agreement on this.

Keep pushing the envelope. Keep pushing this issue onto the Republicans and keep making them defend their war. That is the best and truest strategy.

[karynnj]

10. Also just because he might violate it, doesn't mean they shouldn't do it

He also is not in the position he was in 2002 - with a 70 plus approval rating. I do think it will be tough - will they need 60 on this or is this one that only needs 51?

[beachmom]

11. Only 51 because it will be an amendment to the defense supplemental

appriopriations bill which cannot be filibustered. Unfortunately, Lieberman will vote against and Tim Johnson is still ill. So we need TWO GOP votes. That will be tough.