Damn, I stand corrected - we REALLY can't vote to stop a "surge" .

[RiverStone]

I've been corrected by a few DUer's politically wiser then I that indeed, despite all the opposition to this crazy "surge" idea that BushCo is bantering about, DEMS or anyone in Congress is powerless to stop it. I made a faulty assumption in an earlier post that we DEMS could vote our opposition to increasing troops and funding for the Iraq disaster. Regarding voting to stop it, the choice to "surge" (or not) was expressed to me by DU member The Magistrate as follows:

"No Vote Will Be Involved, Sir - It is an Executive decision, quite outside the Congress. The Republicans did pass the military appropriations bill for the up-coming year, and so money is available for the action without any need for passing a bill in the coming months.

This is going to happen, and the doing will be a disaster for the Republicans."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3043473&mesg_id=3044507

I stand corrected. Thanks. :) That being said, any DEM that supports a surge even in name only is inexcusable, considering the mandate of We The People last November.

What confused me and possibly others are stories like the one below which mention a variety of folks including Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Harry Reid all expressing opposition to increasing troop levels. So is there ANYTHING we can do on the Hill to limit the dollars that feed the insane BushCo war machine??? Or has the dye been cast and Shrub can send more troops at will? I hope I'm missing something? :shrug:

* * * * *
LA Times
12/23/06

WASHINGTON — The leader of the Senate Democrats, Harry Reid of Nevada, seemed to open the door Sunday to supporting a temporary increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Two days later, he shut it.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) returned from two days in Iraq and stated his opposition to a so-called troop surge. "It would create more targets," he said.

As President Bush considers whether to temporarily boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, few members of Congress are stepping forward to forcefully promote the idea. So far, the political response has mostly been silence, skepticism or outright opposition.

Bush is considering adding as many as 30,000 troops to the force of about 140,000 already in Iraq, but he has not committed to the idea. He is expected to launch a new Iraq strategy, which he calls a "new way forward," in early January. That would coincide with the Democrats taking majority positions in the House and Senate after a midterm election that was widely interpreted as rejecting the president's conduct of the Iraq war.

Members of Congress have limited reach in shaping day-to-day policy in Iraq. The effect of their votes on spending for the war will play out only in months and years, and the president has demonstrated time and again his readiness to buck the tide of the Democrats' opposition.

But broad political opposition has historically put reins on unpopular military policies. Some members of Congress are asking what mission the troops would be charged with performing and are questioning whether success is likely.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-surge23dec23,1,5519126.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true


edit: spelling

[sandnsea]

1. A strategy to end the war

Has that not been posted here often enough for you to understand the circumstances under which any Democrat said they would even begin to consider a 'surge'? Or do you just think everyone who has posted that is lying because you didn't see those remarks interpreted that way by the 'liberal media'?

[RiverStone]

3. Umm. I'm not understanding your point.

No, I never assume DUers are lying. I assume good intentions. Now, I DO assume rethugs lie.

My question about stopping the surge stems from the notion that - how in our democracy can a President continue to supply and even increase funding & troops for the Iraq war - UNCHECKED -
when so many oppose it?

I thought the DEM Congress may be able to slow the tide. Again, just learning as I go.

[sandnsea]

6. I apologize

I read your post too fast and thought that you were saying Pelosi, et al, were in support of the 'surge', because I'v seen that posted so many times today.

It is frustrating that there isn't a lot we can do through the process to stop him. Maybe somebody will come up with some procedural motion or something that we don't know about. Perhaps after Bush actually presents a plan, we'll see more of what the Dems plan to do to try and stop his crazy-making. I hope so too, but I'm at least willing to give it until they know what they're dealing with.

[RiverStone]

13. Thanks :)

Post #2 this thread may offer some hope on this question???

BTW, also a Hawks fan (NW dweller too). Gawd, I hope we :kick: the Cowboy's ass!
Just need to give all our rookie pass defenders a BIG net to carry around :)

[pnwmom]

2. Actually, maybe, hopefully, you're wrong. At least, according to

an article in today's Salon. There might be a supplemental appropriation bill coming through Congress this month! If we can't actually stop a surge, we might be able to make it a lot harder -- if we have the will.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3041162&mesg_id=3041162

[RDANGELO]

4. Anything Congress does now could be vetoed

, but at least they could put him on record. In the 2008 budget they could stipulate a certain amount of money for a certain amount of troops.

[riderinthestorm]

7. I read the supplemental won't be before Congress until late spring

even early summer when the escalation will be a fait d'accomplis. Congress will then be confronted with body armor in horrific shape, disintegrating Humvees, decrepit weapons etc. which they will have to decide whether to fund improvements or let it all just fall apart for principle's sake. I'm banking Bu$hco is betting that Congress won't let the troops down in that situation. A supplemental funding bill coming up late spring probably suits them perfectly.

Besides, the pResident is the CIC and can re-direct DoD funds as he wants. He has already been given the funds for all of 2007's military operations (that was approved by the last Congress) so he can re-arrange $$ to his heart's delight to fund his little escapades if push comes to shove. I would expect a manufactured incident (ala the Gulf of Tonkin) to ensure further cooperation if Dems can't be muscled any other way.

[pnwmom]

10. Rep. Jim Moran says the funding request will be in January.

From the Salon article:

"Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, a member of the Appropriations Committee, has argued that the only leverage Democrats have is "holding up the money" in a way that does not endanger troops. In a column for a Virginia paper last month, Moran wrote, "(In January), the President will request an additional $160 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This will provide the new Democratically-controlled Congress with an opportunity to gain some control over the funding and direction for the war in Iraq."

[riderinthestorm]

16. Thanks. I'm afraid though that BFEE is smarter than this and won't bring up a supplemental

until later, after the escalation is in full blow. Bu$hco will simply re-arrange funding to cover everything until late spring when it's obvious our troops are in dire shape and need re-supplying. Short-term American attention span and all that, Dems will have a very difficult time countering the MSM and BFEE spin showing under-armored troops.... Count on triple amputee stories in May. :cry:

[LSparkle]

5. I heard today that John Warner was in favor of a resolution

requiring a "re-examination" of the entire Iraqi conflict -- because the situation has changed so drastically from when Congress wrote the infamous blank check. Hopefully if even a hawk like Warner is thinking this is warranted, others will agree (especially if this "surge" plan becomes a reality).

[pnwmom]

9. Wow. I hope that's right.

[riderinthestorm]

11. I would love a link to that if you can get one.

I'm not doubting you but it's important that Dems in office and those of us in the hinterlands know exactly how to proceed to ensure maximum effectiveness on getting the troops out of Iraq.

De-funding (as far as I can tell) is a moot issue this year so we need to be smart about what we are asking our Dem reps to do about this occupation. John Warner's resolution could be a way out.

Kick.

[MikeNearMcChord]

8. Could they invoke the war powers' act on W?

[seabeyond]

12. i am glad riverstone you recognize this and made a post on it. there

are too many people on this board demanding, yes.... demanding that our dems stop the escalation (surge is bush word, a no no in my book) and demanding that our dems bring the troops home NOW. but when i ask them just how the dems are suppose to do this constitutionally or legally or thru procedure they do not answer, just insist it is their job to bring the troops home. it is what america voted for. and if they do not they will be out next term.

shit doesn't work that way.

we can get bush thru money but a bill just went thru so he is ok for a while. even if they dont vote to allow more money he will get it from another place, it has already been made clear.

i understand feinstein is putting a proposal together for a time line out of iraq. that is one way, but we need the votes in senate and i dont know that we have it

the dems in the house is looking for investigation of the whole thing with iraq, and that might bring something about. but again it will take time

dems cannot go in and say, americans voted us in to get troops out of iraq. they dont have that power

hence the frustration listing to sheehan and so many on the board demand something of the dems i do not see how they can accommodate

[RiverStone]

14. Here is something from Russ Feingold!

Thanks for thoughtful words seabeyond :) Look at what Russ proposed today:

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/01/20070103.html

[seabeyond]

15. i peruse when i read

so i almost always have a problem knowing if it is feingold or feinstein since i look at just a few letters. thank you for sharing htis with me so in the future i will know the right name, wink.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. They can impeach.

[seabeyond]

20. yes they can impeach. that takes time too. first there has to be

investigations. then it had better be damn good and blatant and the will of the american people behind them because even at that there is not an easy win in the senate. but they can go for impeachment after the investigations. not gonna happen today or tomorrow. just like the can send out proposals like feingold to be voted on and again, they do not have a strong majority in the senate to get that passed

isnt that correct? did i miss something. your simple suggestion leaves me to believe, you feel it may be a simple kinda thing to do. or do you realize that it is not such a fast process adn will take time?

on edit: that will leave cheney, unless you are suggesting these very brave dems investigate, get the trash on both bush and cheney and are able to impeach both of them at the same time, all before the '08 election

[John Q. Citizen]

23. We were discussing just what the Dems can do. Impeachment is in their power.

They can cut off funds.

They can vote to revoke the IWR, and if bush refuses to cease and desist they can impeach him for crimes against the constitution.

[seabeyond]

24. thanks for the answer. can they vote to revoke iwr? i was

addressing more the comments that are so prevalent on this board about bringing the troops home tomorrow, yet the reality of the power that the dems have in the house and senate does not allow them in anyway i can see to bring the troops home NOW.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Sure. They can pass a law cutting off funds to prosecute the war, if they

can get it through the Senate.(simular to the Bolan Amendment in the 80's)

Bush will veto and then they can attempt to overide.

If they can't overide, then at least the people will know who to blame for the war's continuation.

Maybe it will spur people to launch recall initiatives in those states that have them.

[TahitiNut]

17. Perhaps those of us who've been saying that Impeachment, Removal, Indictment, ...

... and Conviction are the prerequisites for not only removing troops from Iraq but for making it at all possible that we'll be able to keep from having a muscular military presence in the Middle East for decades to come make more sense now.

The deep-seated and widespread hostilities created by the Cheney/Bush regime in their illegal invasion and occupation of two sovereign countries and the commission of other war crimes have assured that the majority of people in other nations, particularly Islamic nations and more particularly Middle Eastern nations, now regard the US as an outlaw nation not worthy of respect and cooperation. Under the umbrella of 'national security' therefore, even future US administrations will be inclined to rely on military muscle to assure continued oil supplies and trade in 'critical goods.'

Unless and until We the People, preferably through our elected representatives but in whatever way is necessary, repudiate and punish this abominable violation of international law and human rights by the incarceration of those responsible, we're forced along a path that can only lead to catastrophic consequences, not only for us but for the world.

Twenty years from now, if anyone here is still around, it'll be clear - but too late.

That's neither tinfoil nor crystal ball gazing. The political animosities engendered by this regime are that serious, imho. The piper will be paid.

[Infinite Hope]

19. Repeal Iraq War Resolution. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

21. Can you provide some specifics on how this could be accomplished? nt

[seabeyond]

22. is that constitutional? legal? what kind of votes do they need to repeal the

war resolution? and does it have to pass the house and senate, with the understanding we do not have a majority (lieberman wont vote with us) in senate?

[pnwmom]

25. If Lieberman didn't vote with us, but Tim Johnson was able to, we would

have a 50-49 majority.

[seabeyond]

26. for what? to repeal the iwr? is that even possible? n/t

[pnwmom]

29. I have no idea. But wouldn't it be wonderful?

[seabeyond]

30. it would be. i just think if we are going to demand our dems do something

then we should at least know if it is something they can do. so many posts of people demanding the dems bring troops home now and besides john's post above, i am not seeing how the dems will accomplish that. and even with the post above, it is thru investigation and a process that will take time.

[pnwmom]

31. True. No sense in demanding the impossible.

I'm hoping that Rep. Jim Moran is correct about a supplemental spending bill coming in January. That could be an opportunity to flex our muscles.

[seabeyond]

32. i am jazzed about the house sounding serious on investigation

and feingold bill i dont see how that will go through. but i think what the dems do will show they oppose and it will be on bush shoulder. get a dem vote in 2008. i think we will be stuck therenless we find something to impeach and nation gets behind. but then i am not looking at getting both bush and cheney....

we will just have to see how things go. sure bush will try to hold out for two years. maybe iraq will get toooo bad something else will pull him out. dems only have so much option

[bdamomma]

28. I just have a feeling that if these troops go, they will be re routed

to Iran, we should know by now, what a sick and evil bastard bush is, he went to Afghanistan the Congress gave him the funds for it and then he screwed Congress and took us and that money to Iraq, so who's to say he will not do the same thing, right now Bush is sending more troops to Iraq or is it Iran, we have a sick man in office. Something to think about.

[BlooInBloo]

33. Absolute bullshit. Congress controls money aboslutely. No money, no escalation...

AND IT'S A FUCKING ESCALATION!!! WHY THE FUCK DO DU-ERS ***INSIST*** ON HELPING REPUBLICANS FRAME THEIR ISSUES?

sheesh.

[seabeyond]

34. except the bill already passed that will fund it. and bush will get money

else... but other than that, right.... just bullshit. and i agree escalation