If You Think Congress Isn't Doing Much about the Escalation Check this out

[illinoisprogressive]

The Daily Kos has an article listing all the bills being introduced to stop W. We know about the Murtha bill today but, here are some that have been flying around the halls in an attempt to stop Georgie:

S. 121, introduced on January 4th by Sen. Russ Feingold. The bill would give the Pentagon and State Dept. jointly 60 days to submit a plan for redeployment from Iraq, within 180 days from enactment. Cosponsors: Boxer.

S. 233, introduced on January 9th by Sen. Ted Kennedy. The bill would prohibit funds for any U.S. forces above the number of forces already there as of January 9, 2007, without a specific Congressional authorization for such increase. Cosponsors: Boxer, Brown, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Menendez, Sanders.

H.R. 353, introduced on January 9th by Rep. Ed Markey. This is the House counterpart to Kennedy's bill. Cosponsors: Abercrombie, Conyers, DeFazio, Delahunt, DeLauro, Grijalva, Hinchey, Maloney, McDermott, McGovern, Meehan, Olver, Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Tierney.

H. Res. 41, intruduced on January 9th by Rep. Marty Meehan. A non-binding resolution rejecting the escalation as "the wrong course of action and should not be done without an express authorization for the increase in an Act of Congress." Cosponsors: Abercrombie, Allen, Baldwin, Blumenauer, Capps, Capuano, Conyers, Cummings, DeFazio, Fattah, Frank, Grijalva, Harman, Hinchey, Hirono, Honda, Inslee, Jackson-Lee, Kaptur, Kennedy, Lee, Lewis, Lynch, Markey, McCollum, McGovern, Moran, Neal, Olver, Payne, Rothman, Schakowsky, Smith, Solis, Stark, Tauscher, Watson, Woolsey, Wu.

H. Con. Res. 23, introduced on January 10th by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. A non-binding concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress (both Houses) that the President should not order an escalation in Iraq. Cosponsors: Capuano, Carson, Clay, Cohen, Conyers, Cummings, Danny Davis, DeFazio, Doyle, Fattah, Grijalva, Hirono, Holt, Honda, Jackson, Hank Johnson, Kilpatrick, Lee, Lynch, Moore, Nadler, Payne, Rothman, Schakowsky, Serrano, Solis, Stark, Watson, Woolsey, Wu.

H.R. 455, introduced on January 12th by Rep. Jerry Nadler. The bill would require that all DoD funds spent in Iraq within 30 days of enactment, be spent only for the purposes of a safe and orderly withdrawal, to be completed by the end of 2007. Cosponsors: Hinchey.

H.R. 413, introduced on January 11th by Rep. Sam Farr. Repeals the Iraq war resolution of 2002, and requires the President to provide for the withdrawal of troops. Cosponsors: None.

H.R. 438, introduced on January 12th by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Prohibits the use of DoD funds to increase the number of troops in Iraq beyond the number already there as of January 1, 2007, without specific authorization from Congress. Cosponsors: Lee.

H. Con. Res. 33, introduced on January 16th by Rep. Peter DeFazio. A non-binding resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress. The resolution rejects the notion that either the AUMF of 2001 or the Iraq war resolution of 2002 authorize military action against Iran, and affirms that explicit authorization for military action is not discretionary, but a legal and constitutional requirement. Cosponsors: Blumenauer, Corrine Brown, Capuano, Conyers, Cummings, Doggett, Farr, Holt, Hooley, Kucinich, Lee, McCollum, McGovern, Murtha, Payne, Rothman, Stark, Mike Thompson, Woolsey.

H.J. Res. 14, introduced on January 12th by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). A binding resolution that rejects the suggestion that any prior provision of law authorizes an attack against Iran, and provides that absent an or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, any use of force against Iran would require Congressional authorization. Cosponsors: Abercrombie, DeFazio, Duncan (R-TN), Gilchrest (R-MD), Kucinich, Larson, Meehan, Murtha, Neal, Paul (R-TX), Taylor.

[janx]

1. Holy Moly!

I'm astounded!

[volstork]

2. keep up the good work, guys and gals! n/t

[dicknbush]

3. Don't mean a thing if you don't put Impeachment back on the table

Bush is not going to stop until the power is taken away from him PERIOD! and it has to be a dual impeachemnt of him and Cheney or a resignation of both!

[illinoisprogressive]

4. that takes time and we don't have it if they are to stop the escalation now.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

5. I agree....With Bush being above the law,

and having the media in his pocket...he'll get away with murder over and over again.

The way I see it, Congress warned Bush and Cheney that they're NOT funding this escalation. Yet, Bush started sending the troops anyway. He’s tied funding the troops with funding billions to rebuild Iraq (I wish dems would talk about THAT).

His actions are that of a gangster; he’s using the lives of our soldiers in order to get more money for Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and all their subsidiaries. There’s no stopping these greedy war profiteers.

:(

[TahitiNut]

8. Exactly. Here's what'll happen to those bills and resolutions...

The non-binding resolutions will be ignored, even if one passes - which is unlikely. The concurrent respoution hasn't a snowball's chance in hell. If any of those bills pass, without being sent to die in committee, the chance it passes in the other chamber is slim. Even if, by some miracle, it passes in the other chamber and gets sent to Bush, it'll be vetoed. Then it comes back. The chance of 2/3rds in both chambers is almost nil. Even if it survives the veto, it'll be ignored.

However ...
Each person sponsoring any of these bills or resolutions will get to happily claim they tried during their campaign for reelection.

So ...
wake me when something other than posturing happens.

Unless these bastards are impeached, removed, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned, we're in a world of hurt for a long time to come. Lip service doesn't count.

[annm4peace]

10. What about Censure ?

Can Conyers Censure resolution be used? Would that stop Bush/Cheney until Impeachment hearings could start and in the meantime bring home.. or at least send some to Afganistan to help there?

And is it ok we have so many bills and resolutions... will they be combined? or will there be fighting and delay trying to pass those resolutions/bills ?

[Time for change]

22. Though censure is better than nothing, I don't believe it will stop Bush

from escalating the war. Helping his cronies to continue their war profiteering over there, or whatever other crazy reason he has for continuing the war is more important to him than anything. Censure has no legal consequences, it is only symbolic. Bush Co doesn't understand anything but force.

[vickitulsa]

13. Indeed. "The Decider" did not "suggest" sending more troops

to Iraq and attacking Iran and Syria -- he announced to Americans and the world that he WILL do these things. More troops and ships and missiles are already on their way.

Does anyone in Congress (or anywhere else) think resolutions, even if passed by wide margins, will actually STOP Bu$h from going forward with his stated escalation plans?

I can almost see him laughing at Congress with Darth and the rest of his criminal gang in their private chambers, saying, "They can't stop me -- I'm the Commander-in-Chief! *I* give the orders to the military and they do what I say!" Heh heh heh


I try to imagine what would stop him. Would a rushed initiation of impeachment proceedings do it? Somehow I doubt even that would change his mind, but I still wish they'd get moving on it.

They'll probably end up having to do it before long anyway. And how will they feel then, after Bu$h has sparked more mass killing and chaos in the ME, perhaps to the point where it is beyond controlling, bringing the whole world to the brink of destruction as other major powers move to protect their interests?

There's really only one thing I can think of that would really stop the madness, and that's a flat refusal by our military leadership to follow orders issued by a clearly demented CIC. Seems to me they would have to do it collectively, but it would take one to start it, stating clearly in a very public way WHY he was doing it.

There are provisions in the American military for all service members to "disobey an unlawful order." Surely that would apply here!

I wish I knew for sure; but otherwise, I don't see how anyone can stop this insanity from growing even worse.

[druidity33]

15. then support Watada...

He's facing 6 years in prison for refusing to deploy. The Military court just took his Defense strategy away from him, he cannot say the war is illegal in the courtroom. If the first front of military objectors doesn't get through, how will the rest of them have the courage to do it?

:(

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Pelosi said Iraq would come first

We've got live human beings on the ground getting killed everyday. Bush will be thrown out of office soon enough.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

19. Impeachment is meaningless without the votes to remove him from office

That is why there is not rush to impeach.

Visualize 67 Yes votes in the senate and write your senators to help that along.

[porphyrian]

6. I'll kick that. - n/t

[ClassWarrior]

7. K&R

NGU.

[arikara]

9. What are all these non-binding resolutions?

Are they good for anything?

[ClassWarrior]

12. Doesn't look like it to me...

Here's the original article: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/17/17828/9261

NGU.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

20. Moving public opinion enough to get a real bill passed

That is what these resolutions are good for.

[RiverStone]

11. Thanks for the informative...

Update! :)

Though even today there was a handful of DEMS on the Hill that were saying the DEMS need to go further to restrict Shrub's spending.

Of particular interest are those "binding" bills which actually DO stop the flow of crazy dollars for this f'd up war.

Keep us posted.

BTW, is there a site you recommend illinoisprogressive which posts action on the Hill in a succinct and readable fashion -like your post?

[Golden Raisin]

14. Bush will be tacking on a lot of "signing statements".

It's great all these resolutions are in the works but we have a dictatorial, rogue head of state who does exactly what he wants, defying and denying both Congress, the laws they pass and the will of the People.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. This is fantastic! Thank you for posting! Recommended! eom

[bonito]

17. Kick&R

[lonestarnot]

21. Woooodamnwhoooo!

:applause: woot! :bounce: :party: :patriot: woot again! :bounce:

[Orsino]

23. Cool. But none of those has passed yet.

And if any pass, they may face a veto. They've got to be sold to an overwhelming majority.

Let's help 'em along.

[Pooka Fey]

24. I'm so happy to read this post. Thanks!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

25. K&R! way to go Democrats!!!...

[gratefultobelib]

26. I'm not so cynical as to believe the sponsors of these bills and resolutions

are doing it mainly for political posturing. I honestly believe they're doing all they can for now. An earlier post in this thread mentions the power of public opinion--surely, surely this will crystalize and mobilize and be that which rids us of these evil doers. Naive? I suppose, but I have to believe that!

[Zodiak]

27. I'll be there

with my little pen and paper keeping score on who votes what on the Senate side. Some of those bills look like they have some teeth and would prompt Bush into a Constitutional crisis (because he will not sign any of this or sign and ignore it all).