Does this argument hold water?

[Ino]

I got this email from Claire McCaskill which reads, in part:

The President's surge policy has failed. During debate on the Defense Authorization bill, I worked with my colleagues to attach language that would begin a responsible redeployment of our troops from Iraq. Sadly, Senate Republicans continued to obstruct these efforts. In the Senate, it requires 60 votes to end debate and prevent a filibuster of any measure and 67 votes to override a presidential veto. But even with a nearly united Democratic caucus and four Republicans, our efforts fell short. Republicans even prevented Democratic efforts to ensure our troops in Iraq are guaranteed as much time at home as they spend deployed in order to reduce the current strain on members of the military and their families.

I will continue to work to pressure the Commander-in-Chief to change our strategy in Iraq. However, I have consistently and clearly stated that I will not support efforts to cut off funding. Without a change in strategy legislated by Congress, the President would retain too much ability to cannibalize the Defense Department budget in order to continue paying for this war. As long as our troops are in harms way I will support giving them the ammunition, body armor and other equipment they need in order to stay as safe as possible.

Does the argument I bolded hold any water? Seems to me that if Bush did cannibalize other budgets to continue the war, that would be illegal. Of course, Congress would then be faced with IMPEACHING the SOB for it, and of course we can't have that! :sarcasm:

I have been writing many angry emails to McCaskill, and I get replies many times. In one of my emails (I think regarding the MoveOn condemnation), I ended with "I'm so disappointed in your weak pandering." The reply I received contained the words, "I'm sorry you're disappointed, but..." which surprised the heck out of me! Could it be someone is actually READING emails and sending personal replies rather than canned responses?!

[madokie]

1. she's prolly right,

bushitler makes the laws of this land didn't you know that, just being silly, Oh but wait a minute, am I

[cynatnite]

2. I may be wrong about this...

so hopefully someone will correct me if I am...

I read, can't remember where for the life of me, that even if funding was cut, bush would be able to continue to fund the war by using the treasury and the defense dept, I think it was. I remember it saying how dangerous it was for the country. This could be why the dems won't cut off funding. I'll do some googling and see if I can find it.

[BridgeTheGap]

3. Isn't defunding the war their only option?

I mean, as long as they keep giving bush money for it, he'll keep spending it. Besides, he is (unfortunately) Commander-in-Chief and Congress does not have the constitutional authority to set strategy for a war. They can and should refuse to fund it.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Yes, it does. My Congressman has...

said the same thing.

In every program or agency funded by Congress the President has the ability (some say the right) to spend money as he sees fit. Reagan was a master at this, and Shrub is no slouch either. In most cases, Congress has little or no say in just how things are managed. They can hold hearings, but little else.

So, yeah, if even Congress refused to pass supplemental Iraq funding, we got troops there and they will still get bullets, meals, and paychecks. The money will come from somewhere.

[cynatnite]

5. Here is what Barney Frank said in 2003...

In objecting to the pay increase voted for federal employees, the president said that paying for it would require reductions in other domestic programs -- e.g., environmental cleanup, aid to education, community development block grants, and transportation. After 2 1/2 years of making light of the more than $1.5 trillion that its budgets will add to the federal debt during his term, the administration has rediscovered the importance of controlling deficits and argues that additional federal expenditure on some items must come at the expense of others. So, if we do as the president asks and appropriate $87 billion for Iraq, it will force reductions in other areas of federal spending that have already been cut below the barest minimum.

http://www.house.gov/frank/PayingforwarIraq_2003.html

It's not the one I was thinking of, but maybe this'll do.

[radiclib]

6. Changes the argument, doesn't it?

What a sick, sorry state of affairs.:puke: