 |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Can Congress End the War?Posted on Mar 4, 2007David Swanson Originally posted on Tomdispatch.com Introduction Nothing reminds us more of how much the American constitutional system has been transformed, of just how extreme the “imperial presidency” has become, than Congress’ generally woeful record in the second half of the last century and in the first years of this one to exert any significant control over or brakes on White House wars abroad. On such issues, Congress has generally lagged well behind public opinion—as in Vietnam, where its greatest power, the power of the purse, led to partially successful defunding efforts only in 1973 after all U.S. combat forces had been withdrawn and as the American war was limping toward its end. Congress has been weak even at its moments of relative strength, as with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and ineffective when it has actually moved, as in the Boland Amendment’s attempt to restrict the Reagan administration from funding and arming Nicaragua’s Contra movement in the early 1980s, which resulted in the Iran-Contra affair, a remarkably effective set of quasi-legal and utterly illegal evasions of Congress’ funding and arming strictures—until finally revealed in 1986. (And, of course, so many key figures in Iran-Contra returned to the Bush administration in 2001 in triumph and, as Seymour Hersh relates in his most recent New Yorker piece, two years ago they even convened a meeting, headed by Iran-Contra alumnus and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams, to consider the “lessons” of the affair and essentially plot a new version of Iran-Contra to be run out of the vice president’s office.) The imperial presidency has regularly run circles around an ever weaker Congress. Now, once again, we find ourselves at a moment where the public seems increasingly eager for Congress to rein in an out-of-control White House and its increasingly catastrophic policies, this time in the Middle East. Below, David Swanson explores these questions: What might the new Democratic Congress be willing to do when it comes to Iraq? What is it actually capable of doing? If it does manage to act in any half-significant way, will the Bush White House simply ignore it? Tom
Democratic Leaders May Prefer to Claim They Tried but Failed The shortest route to ending the Iraq war (and preventing additional wars) is almost certainly through Congress. Influencing the White House directly is unimaginable, and stopping the war through the courts unlikely. Clearly, Congress is the way to go. But what specifically can Congress do? How We Got Here The peace movement lobbied a Republican Congress without success for four years. Then, on Nov. 7, 2006, the American public elected a Democratic Congress in a clear mandate delivered at the polls. Not a single new Republican was elected, and 30 new Democrats were ushered in, with voters overwhelmingly telling pollsters that they were voting against the war, and by “against the war” they meant “against the war,” not “against the escalation.” Remember, the president’s “surge” into Baghdad had not yet been announced. Voters also appeared to be voting for accountability and possibly for the launching of impeachment hearings as well. Polls prior to the election found that a majority of Americans believed a Democratic Congress would impeach. Candidates who campaigned on the theme of accountability, including Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who promised impeachment, did well. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor impeachment or wish Bush’s presidency were over. Voters in November even booted out a couple of Republicans who had turned against the war, saying that they were voting for a Democratic majority so that the Democrats could investigate the war as well as end it—something a majority of Americans continue to say they want. Prior to the election, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi had already ordered the Democrats in the House to oppose impeachment, but she had not ordered them to support the war. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), chaired by Congressman Rahm Emanuel, however, directed most of its financial support to candidates who did not call for ending the war. Of the 22 candidates funded by the DCCC, only eight won. The rest of the victorious Democratic challengers, many of them strongly opposed to the war, got themselves elected without Emanuel’s help. Halfway Steps in the House Of course, now that the election is over and the Democratic leadership has heard the people speak so clearly, now that, on Jan. 27, half a million Americans encircled the Capitol in opposition to the war, now that the new Congress has in its hands the power that the Republicans had a year ago, surely ending the war is at the top of its agenda. Well, not according to Emanuel’s way of thinking, as reported in the Washington Post:
“For the rest of the year, Emanuel says, the leadership hopes to stress energy independence (with fuel-saving efficiency standards for appliances and cars) and a move toward better health care for children. And here’s what Emanuel doesn’t want to do: fall into the political trap of chasing overambitious or potentially unpopular measures. Ask about universal health care, and he shakes his head…. Reform of Social Security and other entitlements? Too big, too woolly, too risky…. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don’t look to Emanuel’s Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It’s Bush’s war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.” So, clearly the question before us is not just what Congress can do to end the war, but also how the American public can persuade a Democratic Congress to want to end the war. Most Republican members of Congress still follow White House orders like sheep, and leading House Democrat Emanuel is openly telling the media that he’d just as soon have the war still going on in 2008. The war has cost an estimated 655,000 Iraqi lives and over 3,000 American ones in its first four years, with the death rate increasing over time, so by a safe estimate Emanuel has just written off perhaps another few hundred thousand lives for the sake of an electoral strategy. Prior to the recent congressional recess, Congressman Jack Murtha proposed that he draft a new bill, agreeing to throw $93 billion or so at the war in the form of another “emergency supplemental” outside the regular federal budget. That may not sound like an antiwar proposal, but it certainly passed for one in Washington, D.C. In fact, Murtha was pilloried by Republicans and much of the media because he proposed including requirements that troops be properly rested, trained and equipped before being sent to Iraq. Murtha argued that these requirements would force Bush to end his “surge.” In a climate in which opposition to the “surge” had become confused with opposition to the war, Murtha’s plan was, amazingly enough, treated as the near equivalent of pacifism. And no strong defense of it emerged from the Democratic leadership. Instead the plan evolved into a proposal to require the president to inform Congress when he was deploying troops lacking adequate rest, training or equipment. But it is unclear how this would even curtail the present escalation, much less end the war, and there has been no indication of what Congress would do if Bush failed to obey this reporting requirement. Bizarrely, this whole discussion has taken place without any reference to the fact that, in November 2003, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, which placed limits on the number of days that a member of the armed forces could be deployed. Bush signed that bill into law, but added a signing statement announcing his intention to disregard that section. The U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to sign bills into law and enforce them, or to veto them. There is no constitutional middle course. Yet Bush has routinely used signing statements to announce his plans to disregard portions of bills he signs into law. This abuse might be addressed by impeachment proceedings, something the Democrats are not currently considering. But short of addressing this abuse, Congress members could at least behave as though they were aware of it. Wholehearted House Actions Numerous peace and justice organizations seeking to end the war are urging Congress members to vote “no” on the $93-billion supplemental bill. At the same time, they are watching closely for possible amendments to the bill that could require the money be spent on a rapid withdrawal. Such amendments might be introduced and voted on in the House Appropriations Committee, on which Congresswoman Barbara Lee, D-Calif., serves, along with Murtha, or they might be introduced and voted on in the full House. If a bill provided billions of dollars for the war but required that it all be spent on the withdrawal of troops, and if such a bill passed both houses of Congress, the president would be unable to veto it without denying himself a source of funding he badly wants. And there is at least a chance that Congress would take umbrage and pay attention if he canceled the end of the war with another of his signing statements. Other possibilities for ending the war in the House include not passing a supplemental bill at all, or passing one of the four bills that have been introduced (by Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Jim McGovern, Jerrold Nadler and Dennis Kucinich) that would use the power of the purse to try to bring the war to an end. There are also several bills that would instruct the president to end the war while continuing to fund it, an approach that seems more likely to pass both houses of Congress, but far less likely to achieve anything close to their stated goal. Sen. Russ Feingold held hearings in January on the constitutional power of the Congress to end a war. One point on which there seems to be consensus: Congress has the constitutional power to control what money is spent on (even if that power has hardly been touched in any meaningful way in recent years). If Congress says no more money can be spent on the war, then that is the law of the land—although the history of the Iran-Contra scandal, the secret beginning of the current Iraq war, and operations now underway in Iran remind us that the law of the land and the acts of the White House can sometimes be two separate matters. Congressman Kucinich’s bill is brand new. The other three House bills have been in play for some weeks. While Congressman Nadler’s bill does not have the support among his colleagues that Woolsey’s and McGovern’s do (thanks to both friendships and political alliances), Nadler has perhaps done the best job of crafting a bill in which Congress could make use of its undisputed power to end the war. While the other two bills first instruct Bush to end the war in a specific period of time, and only afterward forbid the use of additional funds for [a war] now theoretically over, Nadler’s bill immediately restricts the use of any money appropriated by Congress to withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Actually, Nadler’s bill restricts the use of funds to protecting the troops and withdrawing them. He admits that the “protecting the troops” part is a bit of nonsense, since the only way to protect them is to withdraw them. But all of these bills have been written with a keen eye to repelling the commonplace criticism that bringing our troops safely home somehow constitutes a failure to “support the troops.” Senate Shortcomings and Opportunities A new sideways approach to ending the war without saying you’re ending it is only now emerging in the Senate. This one involves “reauthorizing” the war. This war was, of course, never declared but pre-authorized to be launched at the president’s discretion for the purpose of eliminating Iraq’s mythical weapons of mass destruction and combating those falsely alleged to have been behind the attacks of 9/11. The facts have already repealed that authorization, but it would be useful for Congress to do so as well. Actually reauthorizing the war, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be less useful, as it might appear to the public to be support for the war; while any aspects of the reauthorization aimed at slowly ending the war will surely be viciously attacked by the administration and its supporters. In fact, that’s already begun. The White House is denouncing any attempts to restrict the war as “micromanagement” and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has announced that Bush will probably disregard restrictions placed on the war by Congress. Rice was asked in a broadcast interview whether the president would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days. “The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done,” she replied. This brazenly unconstitutional stance is another one of those “details”—like Bush’s past signing statements—that Congress might do well to bear in mind and cease trying to ignore. There are a couple of possible ways the Senate might get around this. One would simply be not to pass the Pentagon’s supplemental spending bill—something that 41 senators could accomplish through a filibuster. The other would be to pass Sen. Russ Feingold’s bill to stop funding the war, which would obviously require a far higher voting hurdle than that filibuster. Passing a bill would involve gathering a majority—and overriding a veto to maintain it, a two-thirds vote in both houses. The filibuster, however, presents another kind of hurdle in that it requires some senator or group of senators to find the decency and courage to begin it, uncertain of success. Legislating a Unitary Executive What is lost in all of these strategy discussions, of course, is the question of whether any sort of congressional cutoff of funds would actually truncate either the surge or the war. Remember, the president and vice president began the preparations for the invasion of Iraq secretly with at least $2.5 billion illegally taken from other areas. They have promised never to end the war. They have asserted the power of a “unitary executive.” They have launched prewar operations in Iran without any authorization or funding from Congress. They have built permanent bases in Iraq without any approval from Congress, and continued that construction work in violation of a bill passed by Congress forbidding the use of any funding for it. So, the question is not just whether Congress can cut off the money, but whether the Bush administration can find enough money in other places illegally to continue a war that has never in any sense been legal. The amount of money we’re talking about is enormous, but it is a fraction of the Pentagon’s budget, and it seems clear that—given the kinds of “black budget” moneys floating around in that world—the war could be continued for some time (long enough at least to gin up a new enemy to scare Congress with); that is, unless the military sides with Congress in this dispute and refuses to pursue the war with misappropriated funds. If any of these strategies to end the war come to fruition in Congress, a more likely outcome than an actual end to the war would be a full-scale confrontation with the “commander-in-chief” presidency of George Bush (and the vice presidency of Dick Cheney), leading to possible impeachment proceedings. Here’s the reality, however: None of these strategies are likely to advance very far very soon. A movement for impeachment now might strengthen the hand of those in Congress who want to move on ending the war. During the Vietnam War, the peace and impeachment efforts aided each other. And the Democrats then won the next elections, something they failed to do after choosing not to pursue impeachment proceedings against Ronald Reagan for the Iran-Contra scandal. What Could Change Two events on the horizon might change this outlook. One is an attack on Iran. Congressmen Kucinich and John Conyers have said they favor launching the impeachment process if the Bush administration attacks Iran. Needless to say, it would be better to begin proceedings to impeach in order to prevent an attack on Iran, but that is unlikely in the present political atmosphere. The other event that could take us all surprising places is the completion of the trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The evidence made public by that trial points to an urgent need for impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney. The evidence suggests that Cheney was the driving force behind the campaign of retribution against ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson, including the outing of his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. Journalist Murray Waas has indicated some of the points that cry out for investigation. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has urged Cheney to “come clean,” offer an explanation for his actions, or resign. A blogger with the handle emptywheel has drafted a mock indictment of Cheney, and Wil S. Hylton has recently published possible articles of impeachment against the vice president in the men’s fashion magazine GQ. It seems everyone’s getting into the act, except Congress. But Congress could do so. The evidence uncovered by the Libby trial did not exist when Pelosi ordered impeachment “off the table” a year ago. Among the public, there is a lot of fear that impeaching Bush (and removing him from office) would give us a President Cheney. By impeaching the incredibly unpopular Cheney first, Congress would allay these fears. Impeaching Cheney might actually unite the mood of the public with that of Congress more easily than the impeachment of George W. Bush—under the motto: Business Before Pleasure—Impeach Cheney First! In the meantime, the Democrats’ strategy of letting the war continue, not thoroughly investigating the fraud that launched it and not holding the war-makers accountable may prove not to be the electoral winner that party figures like Emanuel expect. It might even prove a political equalizer and so a loser in 2008 or beyond. Every day that the Democrats don’t move to end the war in Iraq is another day in which that war, stretching ever on, can become the Democrats’ war. Only if they come to believe that the war’s unpopularity will work against them in the voting booths in 2008 or thereafter will they be strongly motivated to take the sorts of actions that might actually bring it to an end. David Swanson is the Washington director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America and of the Backbone Campaign. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including being press secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign. His website is davidswanson.org. © 2007 David Swanson
TAGS:
|
|
Honduras’ Top Court Refuses to Reinstate Zelaya
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By katie, June 8, 2007 at 8:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
its been 4 years nothing has been sucessfull, congress is bound to take futher action….how long does bush have until re-elections next spring…and Americans are just going to vote in some one who WILL end this war. The end.
Report thisOh and impeachment wont probably happen, but it would make many Americans happy!
By Skruff, March 10, 2007 at 10:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #57665 by yours truly on 3/09 at 3:18 pm says:
“One has to do more than just say Ive had enough. Ones got to do something about it.”
What would you suggest… we voted the bastards out, wrote letters made our opinion known… the next step has to be violent revolution…. BUT then there is the financial benefit of keeping this system
Report thisBy yours truly, March 9, 2007 at 8:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
It isn’t can congress end the war. It’s when will we see to it that Congress actually does so. What will this take? One has to do more than just say “I’ve had enough.” One’s got to do something about it.
Report thisBy Dale Headley, March 8, 2007 at 8:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
George Bush and his rubber stamp Republican cohorts in Congress have perpetrated the most massive fraud, the most deeply destructive policies, and the most rampant incompetence of any administration in U.S. history. So, now that the Democrats are in a position to rein in the carnage, will they? Of course not, they are just as politically motivated as the Republicans. They will not bite the bullet for the sake of the truth or saving the lives of all the young Americans slated by Bush & Cheney to die in the service of their greed and glory. The majority of Democrats are clearly betting that the best strategy is to give the chickenhawks enough rope to hang themselves. Fine, but how many have to die while we’re waiting?
Report thisBy Kol Klink, March 8, 2007 at 8:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Enough already with the blather! The Dems in congress are in the cat bird seat. Cheney has been defrocked and the dems want him around as a whipping boy till the next election cycle, Bush is a no nothing and all know it (except Bush), even Rove has run out of rabbits in hats. All three are fervently hoping that Libby doesnt start spilling the beans. The mess that this incompetent bunch of whackos created is coming home to roost.
Report thisAll the Dems have to do is make noises of disagreement, make it appear that they are trying to do something about ending the morass in the mid east, but basically do nothing (which comes naturally enough to them), claim the repubs are blocking their moves to put a stop to the war, tred water, and they will stand a very good chance of an 08 landslide victory and put the repubs out of office for the next twenty years.
Both sides of the aisle make noises as if they are concerned about our troop losses and huge expenditures but, with few exceptions, that is not their real concern.
The very real problem is our own oll supplies, control of oil from the mid east and dollar hegemony. Our oil supply problems are not in the news but are very real. Mexican fields are in rapid decline, Chavez is cutting deals with China, extraction of oil from sands in Canada is an expensive proposition and an enviromental nitemare and Nigerian oil production is increasingly coming under attacks from natives that are ticked off for good reasons, and the idea of using corn (etc) to replace our foreign oil imports is smoke and mirrors. Lets see…we are going to use the corn that is fed to our beef, pork and chicken for fuel for autos? There goes the last of our topsoil, there goes our natural gas that is used to produce chemical fertilizer for corn, and some scientists have flatly stated that it takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of corn fuel than can be realized from that same gallon of corn fuel! And what of the price of bacon and hamburger? Of course its all a boon for big agribusiness but thats pork barrel politics as usual…couldnt resist that one.
The reason that we will stay in Iraq is to keep China, Russia and France, et al, from coming back into that war ravaged country and demanding that the contracts they had with the Baathist regeme prior to our invasion be honored or demanding open bidding for Iraqi oil contracts. If an Iraqi government comes to power that starts doing business with China/Russia/France in Yuan, Rubles and Euros then we are in serious trouble and will likely see the dollar finished as the world reserve currency. Can you spell BANANA REPUBLIC?
By Jim Goodson, March 7, 2007 at 11:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The dem,s are as dumb as Bush. If they cannot empeach Cheney now, then they will never be able to stop this stupid war. I urge every voter to stay on their asses.
Report thisBy dick, March 7, 2007 at 11:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comgress is posturing. The masses are against the wars but the power elite, the media, the special-interest pacs and lobbys, and a few wealthy individuals, are all for wars. Since the masses haver no influence, and above all else the Congress wants to be reelected, it will not offer meaningful opposition to the wars.
Report thisBy yours truly, March 7, 2007 at 1:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
If the Democrats in Congress continue to ignore our demands for troops out now, for sure it’ll work against them. First of all we’ll just ignore them back, like we do our president. What else can we do at a time when not only our lives but the existence of all life on earth is at stake? Which means that it would be stupid for us to waste time on the whys and wherefores of the political game, when there’s a war in Iraq to be stopped and a president to be impeached. Doable, too, by way of our prevailing upon Congress to cut off all funding for the Iraq war and then to impeach both George Bush and Dick Cheney. Ready everyone? .
Report thisBy Kathlyn, March 7, 2007 at 12:17 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I like what David Swanson says:
Business before Pleasure—Impeach Cheney Now
Then Go For Bush.
It makes sense and has got Style.
Report thisBy Jackie T. Gabel, March 6, 2007 at 11:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
RE: Comment #56939 by Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD on 3/06 at 5:34 am We have a president/administration that is banking on being right and visionary about its stance against terrorism and a million or so wackos…
>>>wrong
Theyre banking on the taxpayers no seeing through the Myth of Islamofascism, which makes Congress pander to it. Truth is in DC the 911 coup is an open secret. Theyre trying to rein in the madmen without blowing the cover up, triggering the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War and precipitating a global financial meltdown.
Your wackos are the stranglelove operatives, perpetrating the War of Terror in service to the New World Oligarchy, desperate to salvage the collapsing perto-arms-drugs dollar. These Straussian madmen are driven by Nietzschien craving for endless war. Toward their end both Islamicists and Armageddonists are equally useful tools.
Report thisBy Matias, March 6, 2007 at 8:16 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yes, Congress can end the war. Will Congress end the war? No.
Next question.
Report thisBy TAO Walker, March 6, 2007 at 5:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Americans, your entire government apparatus (Congress included along with the muscle-bound military,) has been hijacked by avowed religio/imperialist fanatics….with every last one of you on-board. It is dead-certain they will try to crash the whole she-bang into the ground if you try to “retake control,” ala those guys on the plane over PA on 9/11 (actually or only as part of the official myth, doesn’t matter).
The alternative is quite likely a whole world in smoldering ruins. Have you got the guts to do what you have to do? Or is “Let’s roll!” just another in a long line of feel-good media-made-up catch-phrases with seemingly unlimited commercial potential?
The longer you go on looking in-vain for some easy and painless way out, the more certain it becomes that someone else will feel forced to shoot your damned country down….and there are those who are able to do it, “superpower” status or not. So your fate will be the same either way. Will it be that of a nation of craven cowards….or of one living-up, finally, to the heroic self-image its subject/citizens have grown so fond of?
That much is still up to you, Americans. Everything else is out of your bloody hands.
HokaHey!
Report thisBy Skruff, March 6, 2007 at 4:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #56939 by Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD on 3/06 at 5:34 am says:
“No one will wipe out the wackos—theyll only multiply—but history will prove Bush/Cheney heroes for trying. Neither they nor we will be around to see that.”
History is recorded by the victors.
That makes the above statement an oxymoron.
Report thisBy Toby, March 6, 2007 at 4:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Dear Dr. Knowitall,
If Bush/Cheney and the monster they support (or the monster who supports them) are successful in their efforts to “wipe out the wackos” conveniently labeled terrorists so as to allow for perpetual war - AKA perpetual money for the war machine - AKA war profiteers, no “history will prove Bush/Cheney heroes for trying” because there wont be any history!
That’s the problem with allowing one group of wackos to change moral perception and reality in the name of bringing down another group of wackos. Particularly when one group, in this case the Bush/Cheney group, seem to think they can do it with nuclear weapons. In other words, destroy the world to save it.
The other danger can be clearly seen in any organization where the leaders call for violence in the name of God, any God. If we choose to think they are driven by what they perceive as a just cause, we are in danger of allowing their outrageous behavior to continue until the point of no return has been crossed.
Bush/Cheney have been given a pass, particularly Bush because otherwise good, rational and sane people have managed to convince themselves Bush truly does believe he is being guided by God. Don’t hold your breath waiting for God to step in and correct his course. Or “rapture up” those who on bended knee ask God to continue guiding him.
What will history say? Either this was the era when the people of the United States stood up and saved their Constitutional form of government from tyranny, or the descendents of the few who survive the Nuclear Holocaust will have legends to tell of a nation of people once who almost got it right.
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, March 6, 2007 at 10:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
We have a president/administration that is banking on being “right” and visionary about its stance against terrorism and a million or so wackos around the world who have nothing better to do with their lives (largely due to the hugely disproportionate distribution of wealth and opportunity) than to make it their mission to destroy worldly “decadence” and sin in the name of their religion. It’s a win-win for Bush and there’s not a hell of a lot the rest of us can do about it. Reminds me of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice wherein attempts to destroy evil results in even more evil. No one will wipe out the wackos—they’ll only multiply—but history will prove Bush/Cheney heroes for trying. Neither they nor we will be around to see that.
Report thisBy joey, March 6, 2007 at 2:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bush Chaney has violated the high crimes law required for impeachment 15 to 20 times.
Report thisImpeachment for Bush Chaney is about 4 years late..
Yet we are still cowering and counting the votes needed for impeachment.
Who cares if the senior senator from Alaska soils his under armour ,if Mitch McConnell has a hot flash We are talking about the future of the country..
Yet on second thought, Bush may be right, he is not a president who made a mistake.
He may be attempting to take incompetence to a whole new level….... treason.
By Dennis D, March 6, 2007 at 12:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Our Congress is a proverbial coin flip “Heads special interests win, tails we lose”. No matter who claims to be running the show, we all know by now who owns who. It’s in the corporate interest that this war was started and continues - it’s greed will never be satisfied. The question is what are we the average American citizens willing to do to change the status quo that’s slowly destroying us?
Report thisBy Rodney, March 5, 2007 at 8:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The question is do the have the bslls
Report thisto end the war
By CODEPINK, March 5, 2007 at 8:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The only thing that Congress can do is cut the funding and that is significant.
Citizens of this country need to let congress know what we want and remind them of our voting power.
CODEPINK has done a good job at bird-dogging Hillary Clinton, and this type of activism is the real option (see link about CODEPINK’s Listen Hillary Campaign at http://codepinkalert.blogspot.com/2007/03/hillary-stop -funding-war.html
Report thisand http://www.listenhillary.org
By Skruff, March 5, 2007 at 8:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
ANYONE who expected the D party to act boldly and end the war in Iraq hasn’t been watching the stock market. The D’s are part of the 10% richest Americans, just as are the R’s They make a lot of money, and invest in Haliburton, Harken, and GMC Defense.
They don’t give a rat’s ass about the civilians in Iraq EXCEPT as background to their campaign for more power here.
My representative when called on his vote to empower the executive branch with the ability to declare war told this poster that “The world has become too small to await constitutional procedure…”
Impeach Bush???
Report thisBetter get Tom Allen (D MAINE district 1) also.
By george S Semsel, March 5, 2007 at 7:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Congress won’t end the war. Either the Democrats we elected in hopes they would act are too whimpy to do so, or else they must want it as badly as their Republican colleagues. We’ve been had folks, and the world suffers for it.
Report thisBy Bert, March 5, 2007 at 6:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Actually, Congress, in their role as the People’s duly elected representatives, have all the power in the world to end the Iraq war in a hot second, if enough voters and representatives/senators decide to revoke the 2002 authorization. It kind of really depends on the voice of the majority, at this point, and with more and more people calling for and becoming interested in impeachment, it might not be very long at all until we see a strong step forward to put an end to the whole Iraq business. It’s commonly held that the war was about oil, the whole middle east saga is about oil, and the sooner we get energy independent of all the OPEC people, and Venezuela, and the other entities around the world that want to play with our economy, the better off we’ll be. I doubt we’ll see Cheney resign though, Congress will likely have to make a case against him and throw him out. And, ‘yes, we can’ push for this until Congress puts it on paper and carries it to the floor for a vote…
Report thisBy Matt Sullivan, March 5, 2007 at 5:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The crimes of this administration, from stealing the election in 2000, to 9/11, Abu Grahab, aggressive war against Afghanistan and Iraq to stealing the election in 2004, are legion and are known to all.
If the democrats in congress fail to impeach then they are cowards. They deserve the same ignoble fate as the criminal-in-chief.
Report thisBy Louise, March 5, 2007 at 4:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
They could stop the war tomorrow ... but they wont.
They could stop the funding tomorrow ... but they wont.
They wont because they don’t care.
The administration could stop this war tomorrow ... but they wont.
They could issue the order to start bringing the troops home tomorrow ... but they wont.
They wont because they don’t care.
Over and over again we see the president swagger, actually brag about his war. Reminding us it’s the gift he plans on leaving for us, our children, our grandchildren. The gift of violent death and destruction.
He’s so proud.
He doesn’t care.
Even Kucinich will not step up to the plate and demand impeachment, until Bush attacks Iran!
Good plan.
Wipe out another civilization. Kill more defenseless civilians. Give the big lie legitimacy! But whatever you do congress, Mr. Kucinich, don’t impeach the man who has rendered you all completely meaningless!
Congress debates how (or if) to make a decision. But it doesn’t mean anything, because at the end of the day any decision they do or don’t make brings them back full circle to where they started. Spinning their wheels. Because they don’t care enough to put legislation behind their resolve.
What resolve?
They were concerned about the surge. Were they? Or was that a convenient excuse to make it look like they cared about any of it?
“Although the majority of Americans are opposed to the “surge,” most members of Congress are reluctant to block the supplemental appropriations request that will fund it, claiming that they don’t want to abandon the troops.
Congress has abandoned the troops for nearly four years.
It is the soldiers, their families, and the people of Iraq that pay the human costs. The tab so far: more than 3,000 dead U.S. troops, tens of thousands of wounded, over half a million Iraqi casualties, roughly 250,000 American servicemen and women struggling with PTSD, and almost 60,000 military marriages that have been broken by this war.”
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48788/
Congress has decided not to decide.
Ridiculous inaction.
Rationalization to justify doing nothing.
No matter what any of them say anymore, and that includes all the wannabe presidents, it doesn’t matter. Because there is one absolute indisputable fact there for all to see ...
they don’t care.
I’m not angry anymore, nor am I hopeful. I am just disgusted beyond any depths I ever thought I could feel.
Report thisBy I will fix it, March 5, 2007 at 4:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
bush is not president. we know this. so none of his laws count, none of his minions have authority. bush’s family business is black masses-world wars, assassinations, psy ops like 911. guilty as charged, proven.
Report thisWE MUST ASSUME NON AUTHORITY FOR ALL THESE GUYS SEIZE THEIR CORPUSES AND THROW THEM IN JAIL.
that’s how the human race will proceed.
they are nothing. just don’t attend black mass, it’s a passed fad. arrest bush for 911, not as president, but as a boy.
By Jim Goodson, March 5, 2007 at 3:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Stop the war with impeachment. The Demo,s have the reasons. They just don,t have the guts. Corporate lobbiest own their souls. Democracy has been bought out.
Report thisBy mite, March 5, 2007 at 12:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Subconsciously, people know that buidings do not just fall down. That is why 9/11 was such a shock. It stretched our minds to deny previously conceived notions about the world and physics in general. For some of us, it didn’t work.
“A society whose citizens refuse to ‘see’ and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government, bankers, and corporations, media will lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it’s going to get.” Ian Williams Goddard- from -HawksCafe- on www.
“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” Mark Twain, 1885
The people of these united States need to explore a few documented facts about those individuals who control members of Congress and Executive offices.
Antony C. Sutton wrote a book ‘America’s Secret Establishment’ about one such secret society- ‘Skull & Bones,’ from Yale and know others exist through-out other higer educational institutions.
An excellent book by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Vhaitkin ‘George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography’ is a detailed follow-up to Antony C. Sutton’s book.
These individuals in these books are all members of Banks, Corporations, and Elected Offices. George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, John Kerry, are just some of these ‘Skull & Bones members.
Now we come to the real power masters that run this nation composed of Bankers, Corporations, and elected officials and the Media, The Council of Foreign Relations. Vice President Cheney a member and former head unknown to the voters of Wyoming before his election to public office.
If one reads ‘The Project For The New American Century, Building a North American Community, and then compare these papers to the documented facts before 9/11 and what has happened since, we find an act of treason and war against ‘We-The-People.’
To much money made from ‘War’ people and remember elected offices require lots of money and ‘IOUs.’
Congress will do what it told from these puppet masters folks. You watch and see if 100’s of billions of dollars go to this act of aggression against the people of the Middle East. Iraq is only the start.
Report thisBy SamSnedegar, March 5, 2007 at 12:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
So sorry, but unless and until you dump both the Bush-Cheney axis, AND the corrupt Supreme Court, the Congress has but one job left, and that is for individual members to do what is necessary to insure or assure their reelections.
Congress today has no more power than the legislative bodies of Cuba or Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or even the ones in China which are allowed for cosmetic purposes.
Not that Congress today wants to end the war; they only want to APPEAR to be in sync with the people; they know as well as we do that without the stolen oil, we have but a short time until we go Enron-Argentina.
What we need is to have the guts to realize that the party is over, we have to go to oil rationing, to development of Colorado oil shale and California tar, reopen coal mines in Pennsylvania and West VA, and generally admit that the way to get money isn’t by borrowing it from China.
Report thisBy Steve Hammons, March 5, 2007 at 11:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Swanson makes many good points about serious misgivings some people have about the Democrats. Do they have the intelligence and strength to take needed actions?
Voters will be watching them in the two years until the 2008 congressional and presidential elections. Local elections will also be affected by how the Democrats handle themselves.
It makes us wonder if the time is now ripe for third-party and indendent candidates to step forward. These might be centrist parties and candidates or those with certain viewpoints.
To consider possibilities along these lines, the article referenced below (recently e-published on two Web sites) may be of interest:
- - -
“A much needed new path: Time for independent and third-party candidates to emerge, transcend and unite?”
By Steve Hammons
Columnist, PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America
March 5, 2007
http://www.populistamerica.com/a_much_needed_new_pa th_for_2008
- - -
“Time for independent and third-party candidates to emerge, transcend and unite?”
By Steve Hammons
Columnist, The Muckraker Report
MuckrakerReport.com
March 4, 2007
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id370.html
Report thisBy James Yell, March 5, 2007 at 11:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
As Bush/Cheney are co-conspirators are we supposed to believe that we can not be impeached and if convicted remove both of them at the same time. It only makes sense as they by their own words have violated the laws and constitution that they swore to up-hold.
Let us not fool ourselves money has bought the government and the fear of stock market down turn bothers them more than a dictatorship. Dictatorships always start with knee jerk patriotism, fear mongering and lies and business greed.
Report thisBy John Lowell, March 5, 2007 at 4:30 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
So now the Democrats have decided to restrain their antiwar efforts, have they? Is anyone surprized? These folks are the most ineffectual aggregation ever assembled. They are to the war in Iraq what the Herr Bush has been to recovery from Katrina.
And there are people here and some elsewhere under the spell of DNC cheerleaders like Glenn Greenwald that still think we have a functioning democracy. At AIPAC I’m sure they laugh at such contentions. And from among whom are we to choose the next president other than AIPAC Stepin Fetchits, Edwards, Clinton and Obama. Sure to be a lot of fevered opposition to an attack on Iran from them, eh? Maybe we see an end to our Middle Eastern involvement in 2107 and that only after the First Cav has been incorporated into the IDF.
Serious opponents of the war and to the continued craziness that obligates us to the Avigdor Liebermans of the Israeli right wing and to his American mouthpieces, John Hagee and Jerry Falwell, must abandon all hope of succour coming from the Democrats. With them, there will be no meaningful change. What is needed are independent or third party efforts focused on ending not simply the war but both the war and our slavery. Either that or non-stop demonstrations.
John Lowell
Report thisBy nadia, March 5, 2007 at 3:10 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
We must force Congress to end the war by demanding they answer to the will of the people. The fastest way would be to Impeach Bush so he cannot go around Congress, meanwhile cutting the funding when the next supplemental comes up, which would only take the House voting NO! The American people voted to end the war in 2006, it is time that Congress start listening!
Then we can follow Kucinich’s 12 point plan to stabilize Iraq and pay reparations to the Iraqi people.
Kucinich for President 2008 Volunteer site
Report thishttp://dk2008.us/