How the Congress Can Get the US Out of Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 02:05:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As readers of this blog know, I believe the way to end the US involvement in Iraq is to announce a date certain for ending funding of the war. There is much confusion on how such a strategy would succeed. I think the fundamental confusion is the failure to understand that to defund the war the Congress need not pass any legislation at all. It merely must REFRAIN from passing legislation that funds the war.

But here is the most important part of the equation - the Democratic leadership of the Congress must announce now the date certain when it will no longer fund the Iraq war. It must tell the American People now that the funding will end on x date, and that it is incumbent on the President to adjust his actions accordingly. It must tell the American People NOW that if the troops are left in the field AFTER the announced date it will be the President who has placed our troops in increased danger. It will be the President who does not support the troops.

At MYDD, Chris Bowers admits to being perplexed about this, but finally captures the point:

Are Democrats willing to go to the mat over this? Because Murtha's plan goes through the appropriations process, which must be passed, the final stage of the fight could be a governmental shut-down of sorts, ala the 1995 budget battle, except confined to defense appropriations. I believe this would take place after September 30, the end of the fiscal year, and might in fact be the route Republicans prefer. After all, they have long been arguing that Democrats intend to cut off funding for troops in the field. An immediate stoppage of funds, rather than the gradual process Murtha proposes, might just be the route Republicans want to force this debate. . . .

You finally got it Chris. But what you are NOT getting is that that political battle must start YESTERDAY. Take away the words "immediate stoppage of funds." Announce NOW the date funding ends and the cutoff will not be immediate at all.

And understand this, Bush and Cheney have agreed that the Congress possesses this power:

On congressional opposition:
WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .

GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .

WSJ: You do?
GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress. . . .

"Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse, so they have got a role to play and we certainly recognize that," Cheney said. "But also, you cannot run a war by committee."

I agree. You can't run a war by committee. But you can end one. By not funding it.

And the smart and RIGHT policy for Congress is to announce NOW that after a date certain, it will not fund the Iraq War.

And Bush and Cheney have already agreed that Congress would be legitimately exercising its Constitutional authority when it does so.

That's what we should be supporting Chris.

< Monday Open Thread | Hillary's Blog Goes Live >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

How the Congress Can Get the US Out of Iraq | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

We mustn't do that (none / 0) (#1)
by scarshapedstar on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:06:05 PM EST

The Republicans would whine and call us traitors, and that would be a drastic departure from, uh, every day since about 1914.

: Why (none / 0) (#2)
by Edger on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 04:18:10 PM EST

should the Democrats in the House and Senate worry about these people calling them names or saying nasty things about them?
After all, when any of these people come around around they cry and whine about 'civility' and squeal like stuck pigs over the least little criticism of them.
The Democrats should take a cue from a famous Republican, and "Just Say No".

Didn't I read... (none / 0) (#3)
by dell on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 08:24:48 PM EST

...that Bush's budget shows $0 for Iraq after 10/1/09? So doesn't that give an outside fixed date? (Not that it couldn't and shouldn't be done, like 18 months earlier...)

OTOH, BTD, isn't the funding cut-off what Busn & Cheney seem to want to goad the Democrats into doing, presumably because it focus groups really badly?

Bad idea but at least it's honest (none / 0) (#4)
by Slado on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:38:38 AM EST

While I don't agree with the strategy because I think it is a bad idea I would support the democrats actually practicing what they preach as opposed to simply making statements and then doing nothing about it.

Of course (none / 0) (#5)
by Sailor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:02:23 AM EST

after a whole 2 months with a one vote majority in the Senate and all bills relating to iraq aren't even be allowed to come to a vote because of rethuglicans it's all the dems fault. sheesh, these parrots only sing one note!


Best possible world? (none / 0) (#6)
by Gabriel Malor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:43:48 AM EST

Not only do the Democrats have the majority in the House and Senate, but they are absolved from actually doing anything with their majority and they get to blame the Republicans for it!

Could anything be better?


Better idea (none / 0) (#7)
by Slado on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 02:05:15 PM EST

I guess they could commit to leaving or commit to staying and winning. We can agree to disagree on that point but doing both at the same time is a sure way to do neither.


: DEFINE WINNING. (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 04:05:32 PM EST

While you're at it explain the Republicans doing everything they can possibly to to avoid or kill debate on funding Bush's occupation of Iraq.

What a sad, sad viewpoint. You have my pity. (none / 0) (#8)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 02:41:35 PM EST

Pity? (none / 0) (#9)
by Slado on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 03:52:37 PM EST

I don't need your pity. I just need to understand you point of veiw?


: It appears there isn't very much (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 04:08:22 PM EST

that Bush supporters don't have difficulty understanding.
Reid: Iraq war 'worst foreign policy mistake' in U.S. history
"This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
"So we should take everything seriously. We find ourselves in a very deep hole and we need to find a way to dig out of it."