This attitude of "we need to pass a bill to stop funding" is non-sense! The Constitution _already_ delegates this power exclusively to Congress. This is analogous to the illusion, "We need to pass a bill to restore Habeas, which was never lawfully denied." If it is the President' decision that he will "not consult with Congress", then it is _not_ required for Congress to do anything: They do not have to pass _any_ money. Congress can, without any bill, zero-out funds for this "Plan".

The GOP has _no power_ to force Congress to "pass an Amendment to zero-out funds" when the Speaker is _not required_ to ever put money in that budget line. The Committee Chairs can zero-out funding for this program; until the Administration appears before the funding committees to explain "their plan," there is no basis to provide _any_ funding. Congress does _not_ have to pass a bill saying, "It's OK not to fund this." That puts it up the the President to _disagree_ with powers _only_ delegated to Congress: The Power to conduct oversight, decide on funding, and start a budget. Time for the DNC to throw this problem at the President: If he will not coordinate, then do nothing: No funding. Let's review:

1. Committee Action: Committee Chairs have the power to zero-out budget items on anything they choose.

2. Speaker role: Pelosi has the power, for whatever reason, to issue a Legislative Order, and declare anything she chooses -- for whatever reason -- to have "no funding".

3. Conference committees: These "conferences" are not needed _if_ the House and Senate agree to _joint language_, and exclude all Amendments, that bar _all_ funding. Let the GOP threaten to block a conference committee: The DNC in the House and Senate can introduce _like_ bills, and bar all Amendments, thus eliminating the requirement for a conference. There is no Constitutional requirement for a "conference committee"; ony a requirement that 'the bill' be agreed to by both houses.

4. The "threat of a GOP filibuster" is meaningless: If the GOP "refuses" the bill, then the President Gets. No. Money. Let the GOP filibuster.

5. If the President wants to "veto a bill that has no money for Iraq', then he still gets no money. Money is only appropriated for a _maximum_ of two years under the constitution. The only way for Congress to do otherwise is to _agree_.

2006: We voted for change. Then, change! Don't "ignore the failure to change," as the excuse to "look to this election to change." Change NOW.

While this is an effort, why aren't ANY of the 'electable' candidates or other Congressional democrats hollering about the illegality of the U.N mandate? The Iraqi Parliament passed the law indicating that such should NOT occur without a withdrawal timetable yet they were ignored. So strike another reason -bringing democracy to the middle east- for the illegal invasion of Iraq.
How long will the U.S. public accept the tons of blood that is on their hands and not speak out? And don't they realize that 'what goes around, comes around' and the impact that will have on them and their offspring?

sly:

I believe his response was "We can talk about that."