Alright, who has an effective legislative path to 'pulling the funding' for Iraq?

[bigtree]

. . . one that won't be subject to republican obstruction in Congress and in the White House?

I really want to hear one, because I don't think it's at all politically possible with the present makeup of Congress - even if all of the Democrats voted alike.

[endarkenment]

1. A simple majority no on the next war appropriations bill in the house.

Cannot be blocked, defeated legislation cannot be vetoed, and without passage in the house, the senate is irrelevant. It is that simple.

[bigtree]

4. would the House really vote down the entire supplemental?

I don't think there's a chance in hell that the committee will just vote out Bush's request untouched or defeat it in committee. The one that reaches the floor will likely be a Democratic bill when Murtha and the rest are through with it.

[endarkenment]

5. The OP asked for an effective legislative path.

That is an effective legislative path. In fact it is the only even remotely viable effective legislative path as it is the only route that does not require the consent of the senate nor can it be overturned by a veto.

Your point - that we did not have the political courage to take the only effective path open to us - is valid.

[bigtree]

8. Thank you for your answer.

can you point me to a source which outlines this? I'm having rotten luck in my searches getting anything more definitive than statements of legislators.

[endarkenment]

12. Many posters here and elsewhere have noted this.

As have those political leaders with the courage to say what has to be said. The mechanics of the legislative process in congress can be easily researched. A bill that fails in either chamber is dead. The war is funded by its own approrpriations bill. A simple no vote on that bill in either house ends funding.

In fairness there is one other interesting approach, which is to put legislation into the next appropriations bill that reduces or eliminates bush's authority to wage this war and the next one against Iran. That has the merit that the charge that we are 'not supporting the troops' cannot be made. Either the Senate Republicans would have to filibuster the bill or Bush would have to veto it - at least that is the theory - and that is not likely to happen.

I think Bush would sign it and attach a signing statement declaring that the additional restrictions on his authority are unconstitutional would be ignored.

[bigtree]

14. legislation added to an appropriations bill could be subject to a point of order

in both houses, both in committee and on the floor. That would be the filibuster which would need the super majority to overcome it.

I don't think it's lack of 'courage' that keeps these legislators from rejecting the appropriations out of hand. There's much more at stake politically if they lose the PR battle which is going to drop like a ton of bricks after the supplemental is rejected. Just today I read blistering criticism which I don't think could be simply overcome by sticking their chins out and taking it.

And the thing is, I'm not convinced that the funding hold-up wouldn't affect the troops in Iraq and those in supporting roles in the region and here at home. Bush still controls what how he directs the forces no matter what Congress decides. He doesn't have to use a signing statement. All he has to do is continue under the pretext that he's still carrying out the original mandate he's assumed from the original IWR. There's no doubt in my mind that he'd use the money that Kucinich and others say is in the pipeline to continue his occupation.

That's why I think we need to pass a withdrawal plan first, or, at least repeal the original IWR. Right now, the new Congress hasn't directed Bush to do anything in Iraq. Just holding back funds doesn't guarantee he'll bend at all. I have no doubt that he'd just hang the troops out to make his political point that Democrats are somehow shortchanging the troops, despite his own neglect.

Once the Democrats act, they will have to assume their own responsibility for the occupation. That's what makes the efforts to add legislative directives to the supplemental a risk. Bush could just hijack any funding for his own purposes and say that Congress hasn't forced him to do anything. Besides, have you seen the latest ideas coming from the appropriations committees giving Bush discretion and making him promise to report to Congress? What could he say that could be believed by anyone?

I think Democrats need to take charge of any money that goes to Iraq, but they shouldn't allocate a dime to continue the occupation. Every dollar allocated should be to bring them home. That's not going to happen, but we still shouldn't approve any funding which could be diverted by Bush without being able to point to a binding withdrawal resolution, if he bucks their will, that requires him to do nothing but pull out as soon as possible.

[LSK]

2. you cant pull funding that is already appropriated

Bush has funding from the 2007 Budget that was passed in the last Congress. Any funding that will be cut will come from the next supplemental requests or the 2008 Budget.

[LeftHander]

3. National Income Tax Revolt....

Cut off the money from the source. Us.

[dkofos]

6. Don't bring the suplemental up for a vote

[bigtree]

9. just stop it in committee?

[dkofos]

10. ABSOLUTLY

[bigtree]

13. here it is

Joint Rules of the Senate and House

(d) Bills or Resolutions Not Acted on by Committee; Bills or Resolutions Not Printed and in Files. All bills or resolutions not acted on by the committees within the time limits established by this section shall be deemed to have failed in committee . . .

http://www.cga.ct.gov/hco/jointrules.htm

[americanstranger]

7. Best idea I've heard so far...

...comes from Steve Soto at The Left Coaster.

Introduce legislation to bring home all National Guard troops immediately.

It's a winner on so many levels. Governors in states both red and blue want their Guard back. It would not impact 'funding the military.' Active military would still be in Iraq, so it couldn't be called 'cut and run.'

And it would be a sure-fire issue in '08. 'Republican senator So-And-So voted against strengthening our homeland security by forcing our Guard members to remain far away from their intended mission in this state.'

Simple, yet devastating. I like it.

---

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. It's going to be tricky. Bush is putting them "over there" to train

During Snowjob's briefing on Tuesday, he was getting questions about troops being sent over without guns and/or training. His response ...get this...'They don't have to train here to get desert training. They can get desert training elsewhere--like in Iraq!' and then he shrugs.

My jaw hit the floor but it apparently went over the heads of the press corps.