I'm about to blow a gasket over this non-binding resolution

[Stevendsmith]

Perhaps I simply don’t understand the strategy the Dems are pursuing, and maybe it’s too early to judge them, but, god dammit, all of their energies are being poured into a symbolic, non-binding resolution against the escalation. This reeks of the weak-kneed party that has been doormat for Rethugs since the Clinton years.

Help me understand before my rage boileth over.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. What did you expect?

Did you think that all of a sudden our party leaders would grow enormous balls of steel and actually do something courageous?

I didn't.

I can't wait for the vote on more money for the war.

[whathappened]

2. i'm with you

on this one , it has been a long week on cspan watching the freeps set the tone , they have hammers on any body who has said the turth , and the dems just set there and take it

[terip64]

3. Relax and listen to Randi this afternoon...

She really helps me to feel good about what IS happening. The dems are doing it the way they need to do it. We don't have the majority in the senate and they have to start with things they can get passed.


http://www.airamerica.com/listen/

[helderheid]

21. thank you for this

[Jim Warren]

4. Same here

I'm sorry but I thought these would be put away in the attic for a while:

[Stevendsmith]

9. Me too!!!

[AndyA]

16. LOL - I just managed to swallow my drink when I saw your image.

Very clever. If I'd been reading a bit faster, I'd be cleaning up myself and my computer right now instead of writing this! :rofl:

[meldroc]

5. My impression is that this is the first shot fired across the President's bow.

It's the first step. The first warning to the President that no, the Congress is not following the President in Iraq or Iran, and that if the President doesn't change directions, stronger measures will be taken in the future.

As far as stronger measures, I'm all for going straight to impeachment and removal from office, followed by prosecution and imprisonment, but it will be hard to get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with that. Measures that are likely:

Yoinking the funding. As the recent debates in Congress have shown, unfortunately, a total defunding of the war isn't in the cards, because too many Congressmen (both Democratic and Republican) are saying "that's abandoning the troops" even though that's bullshit. What is politically feasible is "stringfunding". In other words, give the President money for the war, but attach conditions. LOTS OF CONDITIONS!!! YES, CONGRESS, YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS!!! GO NUTS!!! The appropriations bills will have thousands of pages of "$xxx is to be appropriated to such-and-such for conducting operations in Iraq, but the Executive branch may only do so-and-so with the money, and is prohibited from using the money to do this-and-that." It's easy to put into the appropriations bills, most of it will pass and the President will get hamstrung very, very quickly.

Yoinking authorization: It's probably impossible to completely withdraw authorization for the war in Iraq, but Congress can prohibit the President from going into Iran, and Congress can as above, start putting strings on what the President is and isn't allowed to do.

My gripe is that this all isn't happening fast enough. The President may launch attacks on Iran and get us in a full scale shooting war with them in a matter of weeks, so Congress needs to act very soon if they want any hope of stopping him. ACT FASTER!!!

[Stevendsmith]

8. That is a very solid take on the situation. I needed that. Thanks. (n/t)

[gratefultobelib]

12. Exactly--there is a lot the Congress can do, especially the House, as I

understand it, when it comes to controlling the money, which after all will determine much. I love your post--it's positive, gives me hope!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. From the President's perspective ...

A shot across the bow is called a "miss". As in "Nya-nya, ya missed!". It means absolutely nothing.

He doesn't hear warnings. He doesn't hear opinions. Non-binding means "paper to line the bird cage".

If strings can be attached to money, go for it. If Bush can relate GI deaths to those strings, woe on Democrats.

[Individualist]

6. I share your frustration

Actions are needed, not meaningless non-binding resolutions. The Iran invasion war drums have reached the deafening point. This is no time for baby steps!!

[On the Road]

7. On the Daily Show, Chuck Schumer Said

that it was a starting point, and was done this way in order to get a document that would get a clear majority of the vote. He also said that stronger action is planned and that the Democrats are NOT planning to stop with the current resolution.

Schumer sounded very good, as he usually does. We'll see how that actually pans out.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. 30-40 repukes will be voting for this resolution. THAT is going to make this administration look

VERY, VERY bad. When their own party turns on them, people may think twice about what the psycho is doing. The Dems keep saying this is the "first step." I have a feeling they have more to come in the near future. They WILL cut funds if things CONTINUE to go badly in Iraq. This isn't over by a long shot.

REMEMBER THIS...the WH called House and Senate repukes to dinner and told them to FIGHT this resolution. If it's so weak-kneed, why is the WH so afraid of it passing? It's not as meaningless as you think it is. It's a powerful statement and the WH KNOWS IT!

[heidler1]

11. My view of this go slow path chosen by Pelosie is to not blow the

advantage of having the voters on the Democratic side of this issue. By rubbing it in Bush's face that the voters want him to stop the surge (escalating the war). It is important that our side does nothing that might appear to endanger the troops. This is a good way to go about it, a bit frustrating yes. If this does not get Bush to see the light, then the Democrats should take a more force full step.

[theboss]

13. I view it in some ways as a "no confidence" vote

We aren't a parliamentary system; we can't simply tell the Administration it is fired and have, I dunno, Bill Richardson as president next month.

Add that to the fact that Congress' role in foreign policy is exceptionally limited. (I know a lot of folks here don't seem to get that, but whatever). Congress can't negotiate with the Iraqi government. Congress can't give orders to generals. Congress can't move troops on a map. That is very clearly the purview of the White House.

Of course, Congress can cut the funding, but I think that would be a politically suicidal move - as well as ineffective since there is money to fund Iraq for at least another year anyway.

I'm not sure that Constitutionally, Congress can pass a bill that says "Bring them home." All it can do is persuade, cajole, and embarrass.

Unfortunately, Congress' chance to stop this war was in 2003.

[meldroc]

15. As a matter of fact, Congress CAN fire the president.

It's called an impeachment and conviction, and unfortunately, there aren't enough votes to do it - it requires 1/2 of the House to vote to impeach, and 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict. Of course, if Bush is removed from office, Cheney becomes President. If both Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed at the same time, Pelosi becomes President.

Like I said, Congress should stringfund the President - allocate money, but attach lots of restrictive conditions on how the President is allowed to spend the money. This sends the message "We're not abandoning the troops - we're giving them money so they can get the equipment they need, but we're not giving the President a blank check, and we're not letting him get away with doing what he wants." To me, that's politically feasible and can be very effective over the long term. As to what restrictions to put on the funding? Give him money for existing troops, but forbid the money to be used outside of Iraq, forbid the money from being used to facilitate an attack on Iran. Forbid the money from being used to send new troops to Iraq, or to extend the deployment of existing troops, so the President will be forced to bring the troops home when their deployments are up.

It's all legal - the power of the purse is explicitly given to the House in the Constitution, and the president is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution from spending money that Congress hasn't appropriated, and the President must spend the money for the purpose Congress has designated. Its a very clear line in the sand that the President cannot cross, and if he does, there's yet more grounds for impeachment. Also, if Bush does violate appropriations restrictions, he'll be stepping on the toes of Congress, which is likely to make more Congressmen angry at the usurpation of power and more likely to vote to impeach.

[theboss]

20. I just think impeachment is a non-starter as an issue

Prior to Clinton, Congress was involved in an impeachment hearing exactly twice. And we've had some real assholes as Presidents. I know there are people who would sacrifice children or beloved pets for impeachment hearings, but I would bet quite a lot of money that it never happens.

And I absolutely agree that Congress has an exceptionally large role to play in any plans against Iran. Iran is a new issue and Bush's hands should (and could) be completely tied on it.

[mix]

14. timidity and pragmatism

assuming the situation remains catastrophic in Iraq, i.e. the surge fails, and public opinion remains against the war there, the Dems will move to the next level within the next year, i.e. be more assertive vis-a-vis the president, and propose the suspension or elimination of funding ; for those calling for withdrawal in the next 2 years, that is the logic of such ideas, Obama for example > so the issue is on the table

also, the left wing or progressive wing of the party is calling for a maximalist strategy vis-a-vis the executive, so in the end the Russ Feingolds will triumph

timidity > the Dems have a slender control of Congress : also as the reigning party in both chambers, and after a particularly humiliating and long hiatus from power, they need to need to accomplish several things 1) restore public faith in Congress as an institution, therefore they need to move cautiously 2) restore public faith in their ability to govern and 3) permit the logic of the Bush policy in the Middle East and Iraq to extinguish itself (perhaps ethically reprehensible, but that is how state actors often act)

[Az]

17. First of all look at the resistance this nonbinding thing is recieving

They have to take into account what is achievable. Going straight for the jugular would be swatted aside like a gnat at this time. And they would have spent a ton of political capital trying it.

There are investigations going on. There is a stream of dirt turning up. The people are becoming increasingly outraged. The resolution is a first step. It shows they are not going to take this any more and that they are going to speak up. Speaking up is the first step. Once people are used to the idea of challenging the president and they see that he does not heed their voice they will be ready to yank on his chain harder. And then it will be time for the Dems to escalate.

[SaveElmer]

19. Hail Marys almost never work in Congress...

The screws must be applied slowly...or nothing will happen

[LSK]

22. THERES NO FUNDING TO CUT RIGHT NOW

The Military is working off of funding passed from the last Congress. THEY HAVE MONEY RIGHT NOW.

You cant cut something that is already passed.

Binding or nonbinding is irrelevant. Bush would just VETO whatever get out of Iraq bill is passed. THIS VOTE IS SYMBOLIC ONLY.

The real fireworks meaningful action can only happen when Bush asks for supplemental funding or with next years budget. UNTIL THEN CONGRESS IS POWERLESS.

[Breeze54]

23. I'm glad that it's going on the record....

the way each rep records their vote on this !!!

That info will come in handy in the future! ;)