About cutting off those war funds: beware the veto
The news is replete with stories about how the Democrats and some moderate Republicans are against Bush’s “surge.” And many articles also suggest that Congress might even be prepared to cut off funding for the military, or specific funding for that mission, in order to stop it.
This article, more detailed than most, explains some of the legal ramifications of such an act. It’s certainly possible to do it, as evidenced by what Congress did during the 70s vis a vis Vietnam (see here for some of that history).
However, one rather large difference between Then and Now is the size of the support in Congress for such a tactic. Since any such cutoff of funds would of course be vetoed by President Bush, therefore its sponsors would need two-thirds support in Congress for an override.
If they don’t have that, they might try it anyway, of course–just to get everyone on record as “pro” or “con” for use in the next election. But it would not be implemented; the vote would be an act of protest that would have no repercussions as far as funding itself (the only repercussions would probably be the satisfaction the enemy would feel in the knowledge that, once Bush is gone, they’d be relatively unopposed by a weary US).
In the 70s President Nixon, and then President Ford who followed him, were facing a Congress more strongly Democratic (and even more antiwar on the Republican side, as I recall) than Bush faces at the moment (see here for the history of the composition of the House, and here for the Senate). They knew that acts of such Congresses were practically veto-proof.
I’ve not noticed any head counts in present-day articles to indicate whether the votes are there for an override. My guess is that they are not. But I’d be interested on any information on that score.
I don’t think they are ready for an override but they must be getting close. I’ve heard 10 GOP guys criticizing the surge alone, plus 48 Dems: they are getting close.
It will depend on our casualties. If they continue at the current rate, with no huge spikes (like, say, 150 a week that we averaged during Vietnam, then the “surge” will simply run its course.
You can be sure that the Democrats will primarily respond to the polls. The polls right now are against the surge and against the war, and, therefore, so are they.
I would love to see Moqtada taken down, along with his militia, but, ROE or no, I don’t see it happening. It would be nice to see.
Criticizing a suggestion for a surge and voting to cut off funds are two very separate things. The one does not necessarily lead to the other.
The nuance in this case is the “specific funding for that mission” aspect, whether Congress has any power over whether a Commander in Chief can have the funding for an escalation separated from over-all funding and denied him.Biden argued this is an unacceptable form of “micro-managing”.
Opinions and judgments have their place, and without them, self-esteem can become runaway narcissism, and society can become anarchy.
Another difference is that pulling troops out doesn’t get soldier killed, cutting their funding does. This time around cutting funding will get drug through the mud quite easily.
This is especially true given how long much of the anti-war group has harped on not enough money to properly equip the troops. Cutting their funding and not immediately bringing them back will hurt them quite bad.
BTW we are averaging around 15 to 16 deaths a week (that is *all* deaths, not just limited to combat – right at 3000 deaths and there ~190 weeks, I didn’t figure either number exactly).
Aren’t you amazed, Neo, how the propaganda apparatus of the Left can go from quoting Schomaker about more troops needed to quoting Abizaid about more troops not being needed when it suits the Democrat effort to cripple Bush?
It is amazing. Where do they get such marching orders?
The votes are probably not there, at least now, for a veto override. We should be aware, though, of the possibility that a standoff between the President and the Congress could create a fiscal trainwreck in a manner similar to the government shutdowns of late 1995 – early 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown
Possibly, however I do not think that they can get much of the political gain they got during that period. The media reports on it were horrid, much worse than what we have now. In fact, if they do the same thing again it will go really bad for them.
That period is what cemented me as, at the least, anti establishment-Democrat and put the mainstream media on pretty much the bottom of my list of who to trust. I watched a lot of live c-span speeches and hearings on it, the reporting of it was 90% fabrication. The reporters didn’t need to go to the speeches and hearings (I suppose they did – journalistic integrity and all) as a decent portion of stuff never occurred, let alone the vast majority that was “spun” into their political ideology.
Even if Blogs aren’t around we have Fox and talk radio – they can not redo that time period now. Lets face it, if we were in the year 1996 would anyone even know about the exclusion of Samoa in the minimum wage bill? At the least watching the dems in power for the first time since they can no longer count on a totally complicit media is amusing.
I seriously doubt that the republicans are willing to share the blood of millions that will be slaughtered as a result of congressional stupidity with the democrats. They’ll want the dhimmi’s to be totally responsible and get all the credit as the were/did in the 70’s. This could easily put the total over 6 million that the dhimmi’s are responsible for getting slaughtered. That’s a lot of nightmare material.
A variation on this is their threat to add various “oversight” amendments hostile to President Bush into various funding bills, then daring the President to veto. Hopefully, Bush will sign the bills, spend the funding, then ignore the other crap. After all, if they don’t have the votes to override a veto, they don’t have the votes to impeach either.
A variation on this is their threat to add various “oversight” amendments hostile to President Bush into various funding bills, then daring the President to veto. Hopefully, Bush will sign the bills, spend the funding, then ignore the other crap.
Interesting to see that in the twilight of the neocons, they are openly encouraging/advocating that the President flout the Constitution.
I thought that the U.S. of A was supposed to be founded on the rule of law (well, at least in theory).
How wonderful to see the fig leaf now coming off.
Fortunately, the American people will not tolerate this for very long. Evidently the neocons are failing to see the writing on the wall. A fatal case of hubris.
I thought that the U.S. of A was supposed to be founded on the rule of law (well, at least in theory).
Another trick by the Left is to always propagandize on the “rule of law” when the law is for them, but never mention the rule of law in cases like Sandy berger and what not. You notice why, right?
And adding provisions you know in advance are unconstitutional is law-abiding? Besides, ignoring laws in the name of a “higher good” has been a Leftie standard for years. I’m just using your playbook.
The issue about overriding a veto is not significant. Congress can pass a spending measure that the President doesn’t like, he’ll veto it, they don’t have to pass a spending measure, and the result is that the Presdient doesn’t get the money that he needs.
Congress is definitely in the driver’s seat: they have the power to cut off funds or cripple the effort.
The Democrats should simply go along with the Bush’s plan for the war.
If it goes well, they would get credit for hanging in there, instead of ruining their chances in ’08 by being seen as the defeatist Party they really are.
If it goes bad they can always claim later that they were misled and lied to, just like they have so far.
Simple, no? They should have me as an advisor. Move over, Rahm Emanuel.
One thing I can not figure out: formally and legally, is US in war or not? If it is, does President have more executive powers than in time of peace, or no? If legally US is not in war, this is damn hard to make war anyway. And how you can hope to win, if you can not even decide for yourself this Hamletian question, to war or not to war?