If Bush wants troops to stay in Iraq, can Congress actually stop him?

[NewJeffCT]

If Bush wants his escalation and to keep our soldiers in Iraq, is there a realistic way that we can stop him before 2008? If what Woodward says is true, he will keep the troops there even if Barney and Laura are the only ones supporting him – which may be in the not too distant future the way things are going.

According to Olbermann the other night, the defense budget for 2007 is one of the few that the Republics passed before the end of the last session. That gives Bush the money to basically do what he wants with the military for all of 2007. If he wants his escalation, he can just do it without getting approval from Congress. He will cite his authority as Commander-in-Chief when he redeploys troops from Korea or Ft Benning or elsewhere to Iraq.

What can Congress do to stop him? The only thing that I can think of is the impeachment of both he and Cheney and their removal from office. Short of that, is there anything else? It is actually depressing to think about, so I am hoping somebody can give me hope. Even impeachment will take time to resolve.

Even if Congress votes him 0 funding for Iraq in 2008, it will be difficult to bring the troops home, I think. He can opt to take redeployment money and allocate it for keeping them there - I think he is stubborn enough to force a constitutional crisis, which would take time to resolve.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. They could try invoking the War Powers Act

Congress has not issued a Declaration of War since Korea; * certainly did not have one for the invasions of either Afghanistan or Iraq. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1973">War Powers Act of 1973 requires that the President remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days of the beginning of hostilities. Problem is it has never before been invoked so there is question as to its legality, and the Act makes no mention of what can be done to punish a President that defies it. Another question is whether or not Congress could invoke it after ignoring the law for so many years.

The only other thing I can think of would be to reallocate funds away from Iraq to other federal projects. That would be political suicide, as it would be widely hailed as "See how the Democrats hate the troops! They are taking away money to feed them, get them armor, etc., etc."

[NewJeffCT]

I think that is what he'll do

I don't think we can stop his escalation legally... and, he intends to force a patriotism vote next year to fund the troops that are already there.

[Fridays Child]

2. They can vote to end the war and redeploy the troops.

If enough Republicans want to hold their seats, they'll give the Dems a veto-proof majority.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. If enough Republicans want to hold their seats, they'll give the Dems a veto-proof majority.

You're Living In Fantasyland.

[Fridays Child]

10. Maybe...

...but some Republicans have already started making classic "rat jumps ship" noises.

[NewJeffCT]

4. I don't think that would work

The president is the commander-in-chief of the military - so, he can claim authority under the Iraq War resolution. And, if the law was passed over his veto, he would issue a signing statement claiming the right to ignore the law.

Would the SCotUS over-rule Bush on this?

[leftofthedial]

5. they can refuse to provide suplemental funding

then the fascists will shortchange the troops and compromise their safety

then they'll arrange for some of their contractor "insurgent" buddies to wipe out a convoy or shoot down a few helicopters and blame it all on the Democrats

[NewJeffCT]

6. The war has already been provided for for 2007

any supplemental spending would be for 2008...

[leftofthedial]

11. the "surge" (or whatever it's called today)

has not been funded.

the fascists will ask for more supplemental funds to cover that

also, so far, they've asked for more than one supplemental round of funding each year on average.

[PoiBoy]

7. I agree NewJeffCT...

...yesterday on Olbermann's show Barney Frank made two points.. 1) as CIC, Bush can do as he pleases with our troops, re: implementing his "surge", etc..., and 2) that the last Congress has already passed the defense budget, so Bush has access to all the money he needs for this year...

so if I understood his points correctly, then the only option I can think of to stop this madness is impeachment.. up until yesterday, I subscribed to John Dean's strategy of investigating and indicting subordinates in the administration, working our way up to the top..., but today, I see impeachment as the only way to stop this dangerously delusional administration... I'm hoping there are enough reds in the Senate who care more for their political future and their constituents and vote to impeach along with the Dems... wouldn't that be something..?

Mike Malloy mentioned on one of his shows last week that if a president is impeached, he CANNOT be pardoned.. (they were talking about Nixon, I believe, but the statute still stands) ... that thought made me smile..

[NewJeffCT]

8. I believe you are correct

Impeachment is the only thing you cannot be pardoned for...

[pinto]

9. The "basic" DOD funding bill for '07 is in place. There's the possibility of attempting to derail

the ubiquitous Iraq "emergency supplementals" that will surely be run out to fund any troop escalation. Not sure how this would settle out functionally; these supplementals have routinely bypassed committee oversight in both houses of Congress and established funding has often been allocated by the funded agency - in this case, the DOD - as it seems fit over the course of the funding year. I'm expecting some real heat in the House at large over this, as well as the committees of record.

We're not going to see instant results, imo - i.e. our role in the war surely isn't going to end in a couple of months regardless of legislative action, but the Representatives know the mood of the country concerning Iraq as well as we do.

I may be missing some inventive procedural maneuver on the part of Congress, but this is my understanding at this point as a constituent. I know we'll all be watching pretty closely. :thumbsup:

[NewJeffCT]

12. I think they'll play shell games with the money

for the escalation - move a bit from other parts of the Pentagon budget, maybe from some other areas as well.

[pinto]

13. Yeah, it's likely. They have the track record for the money shell game already.

I think some early pressure from the House membership, even before specific action from the Admin comes up for review/action is to throw some light on this whole scenario for public review. So much happened "in camera" under the Republican House, some public PR from the Democratic leadership would be a real benefit, I think.