Comments (20)

Jeff wrote on January 9, 2007 4:29 PM:

"The question becomes, will Bush respect the limits Congress sets?"

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Former Republican wrote on January 9, 2007 4:34 PM:

No he won't so it TIME to IMPEACH this criminal group that is ruining America.

mg wrote on January 9, 2007 4:47 PM:

Were congress to pass legislation preventing an escalation and it was ignored, firmer grounds for impeachment could not be found.

Chris K wrote on January 9, 2007 5:17 PM:

Since Bush has the power of the veto, wouldn't any action by Congress to cut off funds have to take the form of refusing to authorize or re-authorize future funding? A vote to cut off existing funding wouldn't become law without presidential approval. Or is there more to it than that?

sh wrote on January 9, 2007 5:20 PM:

Congress just needs to let the contracting officers know that they will be held personally responsible if they sign off on contracts that assist in circumventing the law.

Rascal wrote on January 9, 2007 5:35 PM:

Actually, it would be kind of interesting to see Bush pursue this epoch battle without Congress' fiscal support. The war profiteers (read Halliburton, GE, General Motors, etc.) would suddenly be left holding IOU's...and the military industrial complex would have to sue taxpayers to get paid. The enlisted would not get paid, and their blind patriotism would be challenged to think critical of their Commander in Chief, versus the Constitution they swore to defend. Finally, the 30% who always support Bush and the Republican Party would be forced to side with a Monarchy or Democracy.

Mark Paul wrote on January 9, 2007 6:29 PM:

I think (better make that hope) the congressional Dems will frame this as a constitutional crisis between Bush and the ’06 election results. Cut off funds and soldiers don't get paid and bullets don't get delivered. Then we're back to the "Dems don't support the military" meme.

This could move very fast, so the GOP better have someone warming up in the bullpen when Cheney excuses himself with more heart trouble. Otherwise, Pelosi is next in line, as Hillary gnashes her teeth.

And the player who seems most irrelevant is McCain, although I'm sure Russert can find some convoluted way to keep him in the lineup.

sorry for the sports metaphors.

Mark Paul wrote on January 9, 2007 6:32 PM:

And don't forget, if this gets to the Senate the GOP has 49 votes, but 22 are up for re-election in ’08.

mlaw230 wrote on January 9, 2007 6:45 PM:

It would be helpful if you consulted a true Constitutional scholar on this.

First, I concede that this president and his policies have been a disaster, there are ample grounds for impeachment, and he has attempted to extend executive power to an unprecedented and dangerous degree.

Having said that, all of the incidence of Congress controlling the war power through the purse, at least those cited, arose post Vietnam and have not been approved by the Supreme Court.
There are serious questions as to what level of approval can be exercised by Congress.

Could Congress have conditioned further funding of WWII on invading Europe before June 1944? Could it have specified victory in Europe before funding the war in the Pacific? Can Congress specify particular targets and exclude others? If it cuts off funding, whaat is it cutting off funding to? The military as a whole? New spending or the expenditure of amunition currently in theater? Fuel for jets and airdraft carriers? Canhe spend money to withdraw troops safely, provide air cover or evacuation services to those trapped inthe green zone? This is dangerous stuff, and bad situations make very bad precedents. Congress and the Presidency have tiptoed around the issue for a very long time, precisely because no one knows how it turns out.

As I recall, the Iran- Contra scandal arose from just the kind of Constitutional crisis we face here. Perhaps Tip O'neil was wrong to pass on impeachment back then whenthe result would have been less calamitous. Iraq would be less clear than Iran Contra where at least there was an insolated descrete funding in question, either to be cut off or to be "worked around"

In the end, cutting off funding could create a constitutional crisis, but not one that would be resolved before the Supreme Court ruled, which could be a very long time and is not likely to provide a ruling that is as clear cut as many assume. In addition the President might very well "go nuclear" and cut off crucial services endangering our troops until public opinion, as fickle as always, demanded a reversal.

My hope is that Glenn Greenwald, or someone else with at least some expertise, will weigh in here with the Constitutional famework, but things are alot different than the days of the framers when an Army had to first be raised and funded before war could be even contemplated. We should be wary of overplaying our hand or going off half cocked. Cutting off funding,othe than in a symbolic way isa recipe for disaster and nearly as irresponsible as those who have started us on this foolish venture.

Mark F. wrote on January 9, 2007 6:55 PM:

Bush needs to go to jail. He really does.

mlaw230 wrote on January 9, 2007 7:07 PM:

One more thing- History will have its way with this Administration, but if we allow it to "double down" in Iran when we have an opprotunity to avoid it, the responsibility will be unlimited.

We know this administration construes the AUMF as an open ended authorization to do virtually anything constured to be in furtherance of the GWOT. If we are serious in at least limiting the damage, we should IMMEDIATELY vote to clarify the AUMF as to expressly prohibit military action against Iran without new authority from Congress.

If no action is taken the Administration can CONSISTANTLY maintain that we knew how it construed that power and did nothing to cut it off. Iraq is now a quagmire, extracating us from that situation needs to be careful, but avoiding the disaster that would be Iran is quite simple and possible. Our goal has to be surviving the next two years with as much of our national honor and basic mores in tact as possible. To ignore this issue, as is apparently the intent now, is absolute and complete dereliction.

Kevineff wrote on January 9, 2007 11:21 PM:

Am I living on a dying planet populated by braindead jellyfish crudely disguised as human beings? WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE IN POWER AFRAID TO STAND UP TO GW BUSH?? What fear does he hold over them? Why doesn't someone point out that Bush is, and has probably always been, psychopathic and sadistic? Why don't our fearful leaders make any steps to remove this loonoid from power.

The military is the entity that should revolt against Bush war madness. The soldiers are the ones who have been most used, most discarded, and most ignored by the Bush administration.

I can smell a civil war brewing.

I can also smell a coup in the shadows.

lower tiberius wrote on January 9, 2007 11:32 PM:

let me get this straight ... Bush gets home from church and tells his mum and dad he's headed out to the stall to feed his pet goat, but his folks say No!, not until he's changed his sunday school clothes and written in his project book as instructed on that days lessons discussed about the nature of forming bad habits such as substance abuse and compulsion addiction. He reluctantly agrees with, "oh shucks ... okay", and with an odd look in his eyes disappears into his room where he opens the composition book past that day's notes and slowly tears a blank page out and slips it into his slacks' pocket. He removes his tie and tosses it into the closet where it falls to the floor and closes the door on which is a full length mirror. He hesitates to assess the clothing, sans the tie, and the features of his face, then grins broadly and makes for the rear screen door out to the back porch. Leaping the last few stair steps, he trots to the the back of the barn against which, lean things he recognizes as implements but of which he has no knowledge of their workings. In a matted area of thatch is the generous evidence of a recent visiting racoon who's done his business and then been on his way. He grins broadly again and stomps in it's center leaving the deep imprint of his crisp dress shoes. For only reasons he would, but may not be aware of, he slides his hand into his pocket and pulls out the blank page torn from the sunday studies composition book, folding over and again until it's not possible to continue to do so, then places it in the center of the heel print at it's deepest part. He steps back, views this momentarily, then steps forward and stomps at the pile driving the remaining mound over the paper and print. He smiles again and turns toward the house loosing and losing the shoe to the sticky muck and considers bending to remove it but instead hops a few feet toward the house then gives up and just walks in an uneven gait one shoe, one sock to the back porch where he's met by his parents who are by this time changed and seated comfortably on the porch, when they immediately admonish him for not being changed and ask about his sunday school lessons to which he assures them he's seen to them as advised. His mother demands he go in the house and change and remain in his room for the remainder of the day. He cringes past both and near gleefully tromps down the hall and enters his room where he lays out on the bed still one shoe, one soggy sock and pulls the phone from the nightstand. As he dials he can imagine variations of what will be said, and as the receiver is answered on the other end he responds to hello with, "I need you to help me get my shoe back".

Bruce Wilder wrote on January 10, 2007 3:18 AM:

The focus on cutting off funding is misplaced. The appropriations process is, inherently, compulsive in nature.

The President is obligated to spend the monies appropriated, for the activities for which funds are appropriated. Whatever discretion he has, is discretion granted by the Congress.

If Congress chooses to appropriate funds to evacuate Iraq, instead of to occupy Iraq, that is what the President is obligated to do. That would be a much tighter appropriation than is typically prepared, but I trust Jack Murtha knows how to fence a Defense Appropriations bill like a Victory Garden in the Bronx.

mds wrote on January 10, 2007 9:28 AM:

"The President is obligated to spend the monies appropriated, for the activities for which funds are appropriated. Whatever discretion he has, is discretion granted by the Congress."

And yet, monies appropriated explicitly for operations in Afghanistan were shifted by the Executive to gearing up for the imminent invasion of Iraq.

Sometimes I think it would be more useful to make a list of times President Bush hasn't ignored the Constitution since November 2000.

Peter Oui wrote on January 10, 2007 9:42 AM:

Bush can send the troops to Iraq in ANY case, can't he? These troops will then be, technically, "in the field." Congress will then be put in the position of refusing to fund troops "in the field." Didn't Teddy Roosevelt do something similar with his Great White Fleet?

joewatt wrote on January 10, 2007 12:59 PM:

John Dean has a knowledgeable analysis here:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061229.html

Matthew wrote on January 10, 2007 2:07 PM:

mlaw:

if you go to glen greenwald's blog, he does address this issue and links to an article by marty lederman regarding the same problem.

Starr wrote on January 10, 2007 3:52 PM:

Personally, I would like to see King George kicked off his self made throne! Enough of the lies! Enough of the sneaking around and stealing our constitutional rights! Enough with seizing power and making himself the "King" of the USA!

This guy has to be stopped! When asked what he would say to the next president - he had this lost and confused look on his face. Like he didn't understand what he was asked. The next president? What new president? This arrogant SOB has the nerve to try to "stay" in the White House!! King's don't leave - they need to be carried out!! With the way he's been stocking up on power and ignoring anyone that tries to stop him - the only way he's going out is feet first! He won't stop fighting! He acts like a spoiled brat if you disagree with him...he's not going to stop!
He doesn't think anyone can stop him! Not the people, not the Senate, not Congress, not the Constitution, not the UN - no body! He doesn't think we have the balls to even try, he mocks democracy - He's the King!

And what is this BS about making a democratic Iraq? Did they ask for it? How can he offer democracy to foreign countries when he's destroying it in the US? He's offering democracy and planning on controling and taking over the resources...think about it! It makes more sense doesn't it?

Why look for alternative fuels - just take over the countries that have the oil you want! Greed and Profit! The only God that he serves is that of Currency! And those religious rights that are in his corner...check out their financial reserves - they aren't hurting either. Not with the cash they are tossing about trying to lobby their interests. I've seen too many claim that only their God can govern and they need to guide the people in what they can and can't do. Why? Because we don't know better and they are God's own and must protect us from ourselves. This BS and King George too! Makes you want to get a passport and find someplace less sufficating! Trouble is - where is that? If anyone knows, please let the secret out! We either run or we fight to get our grand ol' land back from the ones we let swipe it from under a fog of grief and deception.

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:33 AM:

Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye