Poll Question: To cut off funding?

Poll Question:

Do you agree or disagree that Congress should force Bush's hand and use the power of the purse to stop funding the occupation of Iraq?

Yes or No, and why?

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 378 comments) on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 10:53:49 AM
 

YES cut off funding!!

Definitely yes. Congress has that power if they would only use it. They don't seem to be able to do anything. But they could do that and it would work.

It's a mystery to me that why there seems to be such inertia in Congress. Unless there was some kind of deal made between the Bush crime family and Congress I don't understand it. Are they afraid of retribution from Shrub and the other criminals? Nothing would  surprise me.

What you are asking is exactly what Dennis Kucinich talks about. He has voted against every bill to send money to the White House for the war. The problem is with the other members of Congress who are playing politics with this and every other issue.

by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 223 comments) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 1:32:03 AM
 

Where to put her gavel?

We, the American people, are past the point of exasperation and anger and frustration with Pelosi and the rest of Congress with the exception of the amazing Dennis Kucinich. What do we have to do to end the inertia or lack of vertebra in that body? Do we have to impeach the lot of them? It's tempting.

Why do we not march on Congress and kick them out on their collective asses? That is what I would like to do. And if I were younger I would do it. But I'm 73 years old and not able to go to Washington this weekend to bring the word of the people to them.

So I stay at my computer and send emails and work for Dennis Kucinich on the phone and send out literature and talk to my friends and students about Dennis.(I teach voice and piano in my home after a career in opera at the NYC Opera) At first they all say the same thing - I like him but he can't win. That's when I say that if those of us who know that he has the answers vote for him - HE WILL WIN and then we will win!

 Sooo, I go to Washington in spirit with my friends who are going. And I say make Nancy Pelosi listen and tell her that she is wrong and weak and I'm ashamed that she is a woman who will not stand up for all of  us. What could possibly be the reason that she stupidly said that impeachment was off the table? How dare she speak for us all? Did she make some kind of a deal with the Bush crime family? Whatever the reason was she must be made to smarten up and call for impeachment NOW! War is stupid and those who condone it are stupid or worse.

by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 223 comments) on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 12:15:29 PM
 

Get rid of HER...

send her home to her grandchildren...she is absolutely worthless as a politican as Speaker of the House.... being and old "Granny" is the only thing she is good for..

 

by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 268 comments) on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 1:39:43 PM
 

In my experience

as a thirty six year resident of the SF Bay Area with a certain familiarity with Ms. Pelosi's career I would never have expected such action, or rather lack thereof, from this former firebrand.

When I read Medea Benjamin's account of Code Pink's attempts to meet with the Speaker and her rude rebuff of those attempts I was simply floored. I guess Nancy Pelosi has succumbed to the old saw about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

I began to list, in my mind, the reasons why Pelosi and Reid would fail to honor the wishes of an electorate that placed them in the majority expressly to end this horrid little war for Georgies ego and Cheney's bank account but decided that the why of it really doesnt matter at all .

I wonder what is going to happen in the coming national elections, one the one hand we see an absolutely corrupted republican Party, riddled with sycophantic adherence to  failed foreign and domestic strategies and further beset by scandal afeter scandal. On the other side of the coin a powerless and increasingly foolish and incompetent ( or worse) appearing Democratic Party. What to do, for whom to vote. Its a good time to be a Green I tell you.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 4:33:34 PM
 

Take a look at Kucinich.

Take a look at Dennis Kucinich and what he stands for. He will implement a  not for profit national health care plan; he has introduced a bill to impeach Cheney and then Bush; he is the ONLY member of Congress who has voted against the war every time.  He would end NAFTA and bring some power back to the unions that have suffered such a huge loss.

If you can get a chance to see and hear him in person, you will be totally convinced that he is the one candidate who can turn our country around and bring back some compassion for the people and some respect for our country.

I volunteer in his campaign and I feel it's a privilege to do it. This is the most important election in my lifetime and I'm 73 years old.  

by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 223 comments) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 1:17:01 AM
 

You are a firecracker!

I only hope I still have the fire in my seventies....

I love what Dennis Kucinich stands for, I would support him in an instant, if......

he actually had a tinkers chance of winning, he doesnt.

I were still a registered Democrats, I am not.

He wouldnt still be a democrat if elected, wouldnt be forced to compromise with the wishes of his party, wishes I can never support.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, September 14, 2007 at 6:26:50 PM
 

A small history lesson: Legacy vs. Lives

I thought I would post this here for everyone to read and will make a diary entry, or maybe an article about it later. Below, is a cross-post comment on Smirking Chimp and my reply.

tell the troops over there and thier families here why we can't supply them or even pull em out,cause we want to make a stand against GW and his war,tuff luck for you guys stuck in the middle of it but thems the breaks.
No doubt with the extremely limited comprehension you show you would consider the facts "rambling" its hard to follow something you don't understand.
And The House is not the final say what goes through as a final war funding bill after the House submits its version of the Bill the Senate submits its version
" Once both the House and Senate versions are approved, a conference committee will hammer out the differences."
and eventually a final bill is presented.And you say you know how Congress works and I don't?
You may have some understanding of what the House can do in theory but you leave out the reality factor.
So as I said no funding is not a viable answer unless you don't give a damn what it costs the troops.
And once more none of you are explainig why your not raising hell with the Republicans for no support in ending it.
I despise this war and George W.f*cking Bush as much or more than you do but reality is reality and failing to count the cost is not fair to the troops or thier families. You may believe the cost is negligable and worth it but I doubt the troops and families would agree.
Its easy to make your claims so long as someone else is paying the cost.

I am going to ignore the crass "limited comprehension" remark, since you do no know me personally, and cannot possible lay claim to what I do or do not understand. Tactless comments aside, as a conscientious objector, I care about the troops a great deal on a human level, but I do not believe that you can claim opposition to an illegal war and support the troops that continue to execute an illegal order, from an illegitimate President, who is a war criminal. Especially in light of all that we now know.

Now, my personally feelings notwithstanding, let's look at what the Constitution says about funding:

1. Article I, Section 7

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. (Yes the Senate may propose or concur, but the Bill must eventually originate in the House regardless.)

2. Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence... To declare War...(and all other enumerated powers vested in providing for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States)

That's it. In reference to war and defense, these are the only supreme laws of our land. Every other law or regulation is subordinate to the Constitution. There is no clause, section, or reference that Congress must provide a President with any specific Bill, nor provide, in particular, any Bill at any certain time, for any certain amount, in reference to defense and war. Congress retains these sole rights and in no way must provide anything in terms of spending to a President.

Moving on to reality, as you suggest, since we have clearly established that Congress has the sole power to both declare war, which it never formally did, and to provide for the common defense, Congress is under no Constitutional obligation to provide funds, only that it may do so as it deems necessary.

Since the Speaker of the House controls all legislation that comes before the floor of the House, and we now have established that Bills for raising revenue, including those inferred or suggested by the Senate, must originate in the House, Pelosi is again under no Constitutional responsibility to bring forth any Bill, including for defense.

Now, in modern times, it is customary, and precedence has been set, that the House undertakes a yearly defense spending Bill and any emergency spending authorizations that the President may request. However, again, the House is under no legal compulsion to do so at the behest of any President.

When Pelosi chose to bring Bush's emergency funding Bill to the House floor, where amendments were added to include a withdrawal time line, in order for Bush to obtain the monies he requested, the House passed the Bill, but Bush vetoed it. Congress is under no obligation, by any law or decree, to re-visit that Bill after a veto. Pelosi CHOSE to, and as they say, "there in lies the rub." Pelosi has consciously made a choice to fund Bush's war.

Congress has every right to refuse to dispense any further funds for the occupation of Iraq, and has every Constitutional right to tell President Bush that no further funds will be made available.

Further, in the current Iraq situation, the Emergency Appropriations Bill, that was passed this past spring, by the Pentagon's own admission, provides enough funding for the occupation of Iraq through April of 2008.

Given this fact, Pelosi and the 110th Congress has every Constitutional entitlement to refuse any additional funds to Bush, and demand he use the currently available funds to withdrawal the troops. If Bush refuses to remove the troops from Iraq, the ultimate fate of the troops will be in Bush's hands, not Congress' hands.

What many people miss, and fail to understand, is what we have here is literally a "game of chicken", where Bush is holding the troops hostage (support the troops), in order to coerce Congress into providing him additional funds for his failed occupation of Iraq.

Congress has the power of the purse and can use it to force Bush's hand. So far, they have chosen to be complicit, instead of providing both opposition and performing the mandate America gave them in the 2006 election.

To answer your final question, concerning going after the rubber-stamping Republicans, I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I write my Republican Congresswoman every day. Of course, as one might expect from a Bush toady, I receive condescending, placating letters in return. They are complete with pithy neocon sayings and talking points, along with a helping dose of propaganda that I fully ignore.

I am not a Constitutional expert, but a research writer who tends to gravitate towards Constitutional issues. I have read a number of opinions from Constitutional experts and law professors on this subject, as well as spoke to and interviewed a number of former people, who have worked in and with Congress, and the above notations are a reflection of their astute opinions.

The bottom line is Pelosi, as the Speaker of the House, controls the agenda, and never has to consider any Bill she does not wish to deliberate in the House. She has chosen to fund this war thus far, and in essence lost a game of "Texas Hold'em" when she had all the cards and Bush had an empty hand.

Personally, I feel sorry for all the men and woman who were hoodwinked into believing they were serving their country for a genuine and patriotic person. Instead, they were duped into a pre-emptive war of aggression, for hegemonic purposes, and simple, war profiteering greed. We, as a nation, have placed them in an untenable situation. However, this is a volunteer military, and any one who signs up willingly today, after all that we now know, either wishes to go to Iraq or is very under-informed about the current situation.

The final analysis is that Bush is holding the current troops captive, in a very real and lethal political game, in order to save face for a catastrophically poor decision to invade Iraq.

Our best hope – as bleak as it might be - is to inject a little courage into a fractured Democratic Party and hope they do the right thing and stop submitting to a warmonger who is more worried about legacies than lives.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 378 comments) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 7:25:45 AM
 

This is good stuff you are writing Frank keep it up

if you can. 

Your combination of civility and courtesy and that you keep going back to the Constitution showing that you have a basis for your views, is, or should be, persuasive. 

Often one can't tell when one has changed anothers opinion or even if ones views are being read but if you keep engaging with those that disagree with you in the way that you are you will persuade some even if they don't tell you that you have publicly and you may persuade or inspire others who are reading.  If we can get enough folk using the Constitution and well sourced documents in their arguments rather than the (albeit understandable emotion which all people feel about their own views) we may have a better chance of building a critical political mass.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 9:21:58 AM
 

Thanks, I try....

Thank you, Brett. I have been at it for nearly five years, so don't worry, I won't let up. Occasionally I get cranky and let loose with an ad hominem attack, but they are usually justified by the time I lose my cool.

To wit, to your point, his reply to my rather lengthy missive, after I used that pesky little Constitution to assert my position with attributions and facts:

Okay, I was wrong...to resort to personal attacks...

I never said technically they couldn't refuse to fund or consider doing so. I did say that in reality they couldn't refuse. Just as you said Bush is holding the troops hostage, and very effectively, public opinion was against the Dems in thier original reluctance to go to war in Iraq, resulting in verbal and political attacks further resulting in losing more seats to the Republicans, giving the republicans licsense to do anything they wanted as we have all witnessed.
Now,refusal to fund the war any further would ultimately produce the same results with even greater disasterous effects.Political reprecussions aside a lot of un-neccessary deaths that would result even though it would in actuality be Bush's fault it would appear to the public given Rep and media spin that it was the Dems fault these troops and Iraqi civilians died needlessly. And die they will without the funding George asks for George will make sure of that if only for political reasons have no doubt.
You seem to forget that GW and his machine do not give a rats ass how many die or what they do to achieve thier ends nor do they care who pays the ultimate cost.
This is a part of the reality of the situation just as the House having control of funding is.
To fail to take into consideration the consequences of funding refusal would be neglegent.You can't consider only the parts of reality that support your argument, you must in fairness to others who will utimately pay the cost consider the whole matter.
There is a great deal that can be said on both sides of this argument and to try and do it here can't do justice to either side.
Bottom line is, given Bush's careless disregard to consequences in achieving his agenda, the Reps who back him, the media that spins for him, and a public opinion that is so often easily manipulated refusal to fund would amount to suicide politically and unconscionable cost on the part of the troops and the Iraqis.
That makes for one hell of a choice, damned if you do,damned if you don't.

" The final analysis is that Bush is holding the current troops captive, in a very real and lethal political game, in order to save face for a catastrophically poor decision to invade Iraq."

I believe this is only the tip of the iceburg, it goes far beyond saving face for a catastrophically poor decision to invade Iraq.
If he is not stopped by stripping him of Republican support and efforts to keep him in power by discrediting and turning voters away with negativity against the only political resort we have, short of revolution and more chaos, for not taking what amounts to a disasterous costly, win the battle but lose the war, refusal to fund stand is not going to rid us of this current regime.
I am sure we both want whats best for everyone,we have different takes on how to accomplish it and personal attacks are wrong my "limited comprehension" statement was indeed just as wrong as your "After reading his lengthy rambling," statement was, two wrongs don't make a right and I shouldn't have stooped to that level.
Finally,
"To answer your final question, concerning going after the rubber-stamping Republicans, I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I write my Republican Congresswoman every day. Of course, as one might expect from a Bush toady, I receive condescending, placating letters in return. They are complete with pithy neocon sayings and talking points, along with a helping dose of propaganda that I fully ignore."
Thats great, now how about voicing your opposition to the Reps as strongly here as you do the Dems. By not doing so you appear to support the Reps weither you do or not.To voice on here your dissent with the Dems is fine all I ask is you do the same with the reps if your intentions are not simply to sway voters to give the country back to the reps.

I believe we made some headway...facts really do tend to dampen emotions and misplaced sentiment.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 378 comments) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 10:42:27 AM
 

To answer your "Poll Question"..........

Yes!........................Cut of the funding!!!!

Then impeach the infidel.........................if left unaccountable.....all of the Iraqi blood will be on the hands of the American citizens............and to say the least...........this is insanity.............

by Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 11:43:41 AM
 

Yes or No. It depends on details I don't have yet.

That Congress has the power to cut off funding I accept as a given.

That America invaded Iraq illegally and immorally I also accept as a given. And for that nothing less than the impeachment of George W Bush will satisfy me because I am that sure that that was a collosal mistake for America and a collosal step backwards for the civilised world. 

That said America is in Iraq now. And I agree that America will be harmed if America withdraws from Iraq without honor.  Many of those calling for an American withdrawal immediately seem to me to be more than willing to countenance or accept that America will be doubly dishonorable. Dishonorable going in. And dishonorable in leaving a broken state behind when they go out.

Bush has fucked up bigtime and America has only just begun to pay the price for re-electing this President and for American citizens being so unaware of their own system of government, of their place in that system, and of their relationship to the rest of the world. 

Nothing is more important to American, in my considered opinion, than the thorough repudiation of the Bush Presidency and of Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Impeachment is more important that withdrawing the troops.

If I were a congressional representative I would be pursuing impeachment of Bush for the invasion of Iraq but all possible means. Including the withholding of funds. Including taking on Bush aggressively in the courts.

But just because it is Bush that says that leaving mistake now would be wrong doesn't mean that it would be right. I am not sure that it would be right. How American leaves Iraq depends on detail I am not fully across such as the sentiment of the Iraqi people whom I feel the United States now owes a blood debt to.

I am not an advisor or a congressional vote counter so I do not know for a fact that it is impossible for Pelosi, Reid, Conyers and others to get impeachment started in the house. It might be because of the so called Blue Dog democrats.  If I was absolutely sure that the house could not be successful impeaching Bush because I had specifically and thoroughly explored the views of the other congresspeople whose support I needed and found I could not get the numbers to impeach in the house but could get the numbers to cut of funds then I might cut of funds as a secondary option. But impeachment is first. America has an horrendous wound in its psyche and it is incredibly vulnerable in Iraq and at home to paypacks including righteous paybacks for its duplicity and international lawlessness.

I would wonder what the policy of China and Russia would be to 'success' in Iraq. China might legitimately see American failure and humiation in Iraq as in its national interest.

America is abroad in dishonor and it is vulnerable because it is in dishonor. There can be no safety for Americans anywhere until they redeem themselves and show that they are a nation that will uphold solemn oaths taken and that respects the rule of law. And impeachment is crucial to that.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments) on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 9:39:03 PM
 

Restoring America's Dignity

Brett,

On the whole, I agree with you. Impeachment, for me, is a sore spot and especially relevant, as I have been an ardent advocate of impeaching Bush for going on four years now.

Little argument can be made that bypassing FISA, lying about, as he did on April 20, 2004, violates the Fourth amendment and is an impeachable offense. The list of course, of impeachable offenses, is far more extensive and well-documented, by a litany of books and a swath of constitutional scholars of all political stripes. Bush has by all accounts, based on in-depth reading of what the founding fathers considered an impeachable offense, surpassed the threshold of impeachable transgressions long ago.

The only way for America to restore its dignity and standing in the world is to repudiate Bush's actions. We must re-establish the rule of law and hold this President accountable for inconceivable acts of sedition, subjugation, and usurpation.

A final though, a quote of mine:

"Never in America's past has an assault on the truth and freedom been waged so viciously, nor have the American people been so reprehensibly divided and utterly deceived, by a man we never elected, but was selected for us, in the first place."

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 378 comments) on Friday, September 14, 2007 at 1:56:39 AM