If Congress can stop Shrub - how fast can it REALLY happen?

[RiverStone]

Here is an expert from an email John Edwards Campaign Manager, David Bonior sent to supporters yesterday:

This weekend, President Bush claimed on national TV that Congress does not have the power to stop his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq.

That's bull. I served in Congress for 26 years, and I can assure you that Congress does have the power to stop this escalation -- and it has used that power many times before, including in Vietnam, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Colombia.

The test for today's Congress is simple: will they step up to the plate and use their power to stop the president from escalating the war? I can tell you one thing -- they're only going to do that if they hear from you.

more:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/17/192052/404

* * * * *

Given Shrub's egomaniac tendency and delusions of dictatorship, I doubt he would listen even if poppy and all the rethugs in Congress requested he chill on his escalation plans. So we can pass "non-binding" resolutions till the cows come home and nothing will change.

With military appropriations for 2007 having already passed the rethug Congress last year, Shrub marches onward toward escalation oblivious to anyone's opinion including the majority view of We The People.

My question is this:

Leaving out Impeachment for now (that would take quite a while) or Shrub resigning (yea right), what would be the soonest Congress could actually STOP the escalation though legislative action which results in an immediate and measurable reduction of soldiers or dollars for the insanity in Iraq? :shrug:

[Joe for Clark]

1. We need to remember - we really are a republic first.

It is no small point.

It is not just an issue of war funding - this is right and wrong - and it goes a lot deeper.

And that is what a republic is all about. We elected those people to represent us - they are us, so to speak. To do our business.

You can extend this to many things I suppose- but they will go like this -

You know North Carolina - you want to go against the collective will of the country and we can turn those tobacco subsidies off in a heart beat. You see the point - There are many ways to skin a cat.

Assume everything is on the table - it is you know. And those people want to get reelected.

Soonest possible?? - Just depends on how aggressive they want to be.

Joe

[mmonk]

2. Also, anyone can file articles of impeachment at anytime.

[pat_k]

3. Bush and Cheney could be out by President's day.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12

. . .
Republicans are likely to be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "exit strategy."

Republicans may not be willing to defend the indefensible for long. When Bush nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment (which passed with over 90 votes) he slapped them in the face. They would be hard pressed to defend Bush for abusing signing statements nullify the overwhelming will of the people in order to keep torture "on the table." Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Repubs will certainly try the "Un-Patriotic to attack the President in War time" bit (the only "attack" on impeachment we have heard out of them) but that doesn't go far if Repubs aren't willing to defend against the indefensible charges (which they aren't even doing now).

Bush and Cheney are an albatross that many Republicans would be happy to get rid of.

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism) "debates"(1) about the charges will be the nightly fare on every news-entertainment show. Debates about:

• Whether or not Bush and Cheney's claim to have a "get out of jail free" card (unitary authoritarian executive) are absurd;


• Whether or not Bush and Cheney confess to high crimes every time they invoke the "unitary" fig leaf;


• Whether or not Bush and Co abused power to terrorize the nation into a criminal war of aggression. (No amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq had the capability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States -- not in 45 minutes; not in a year; not in 5 years.);


• Whether or not forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act demonstrates consciousness of guilt.


• Whether or not they should be turned over to the Hague, given that SCOTUS declared them to be War Criminals in Hamdam.

When the Democratic leadership gets serious about impeachment, Repubs may have Bush and Cheney out within a week.

--------------
(1) with no valid "other side" there really is no debate.