Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, in August 2006, urged the President to redeploy our soldiers from Iraq starting by the end of 2006. Mr. Kucinich has said more or less the same thing. Obviously it can be done.
She can do better than that. Cut off their money.
It can be done because they said it can be done? Nonsense. The President can do it, which is why they told him to do it. They can’t, because they’re not in charge of the armed forces. Congress is giving additional money for the military budget in Iraq. If they pulled that funding, I think John Mace is right: Bush would still have the rest of the $500 billion military budget to spend on Iraq. He’d just have to take the money out of somewhere else.
I still don’t see what your point is. Yes, they “urged” the president to bet us out of Iraq, but they can’t order him to do so unless they are able to pass a resolution in Congress. And we’ve pointed out over and over that Bush can veto such a resolution. Yes, most of us think they should pass such a resolution, but most of us are also smart enough to realize that it probably wouldn’t actually change anything Bush does. So, yeah, go for the resoultion as a feel good measure and some way of telegraphing a strong message to Bush, but don’t be shocked when that doesn’t accomplish anything.
I see over and over here about passing some resolution to override the original authorization. The appropriations process has nothing to do with the authorization. Congress can cut the funding for the war in Iraq just like they did in 1974, thus initiating a redeployment.
No strategy of immediate change is plausible. The Dems won a big one, but just the one. The power implied by that victory is the power of investigation, the power to call people to speak under oath. What did the President know, and when did he know it? To peel away support, percentage point by percentage point. To give Pubbies a stark choice: turn against Bush, wholly and unreservedly, or kiss '08 goodbye.
It will be too slow. Lessons of history, children, lessons of history. The American public was largely against the Viet Nam war as early as '68, it still took years. Many of us in the Loyal Opposition seem to think that our recent electoral victory means sudden change, but it doesn’t. It only grants the power to go forward, to reveal the truth. To take down the wall brick by brick. Massive street demonstrations? Very likely. (Oh, yuck! Oh, triple yuck! Marching for hours and then listening to self-righteous blowhards preach to the choir, telling me what I already know in shocked tones of dismay. I’m too old for this shit…)
I think that is fiction. Where is he going to find $60 to $80 billion in the DoD budget?
Tell me why he couldn’t take it out of whatever he wants. It would hardly be the dumbest thing he’s done with this war.
In all honesty, isn’t “redeployment” a euphamism for “retreat”?
In all honesty, isn’t “surge” a euphemism for “throwing more American men and women into the meat grinder”?
“Redeploy away! Redeploy away!”
If by “retreat” you mean prying open the jaws of the bear trap so we can pull our naughty bits out, yes, indeedy. I suppose if we were real men, we would just stand there with ten pounds of saw toothed steel hanging from our collective junk, grit our teeth and take it.
I would remind the esteemed guest that it is precisely this sort of hard-ass macho attitude that keeps getting us into shitstorms like this one.
Isn’t it a bit early in the day to be jumpin on the Dems shit already? The OP has a completely unrealistic view of how the government actually works…especially what Congress can and can not do. As well as a ridiculous view on the time table possible to do something as major as getting our troops out of Iraq in the face of opposition from the President (you know, that whole ‘Commander and Chief’ thingy). Other posters have tried to convey this to the OP, but s/he seems stubornly sticking to the loony left talking points that somehow (with their magic powers) the Dems in Congress can cut funding (to the troops in the field) and this will force the president to tuck tail, reverse himself (I don’t even think Bush HAS a reverse gear) and bring the troops home. Not only could the Dems in Congress get something like that through (i.e. cutting funding to the troops in the field), but if they tried it would be a major political hit against them (I can well imagine what the 'Pubs would do with that kind of ammo)…but it would be all for naught. Bush doesn’t NEED Congress to fund the war in Iraq, at least not in the short term…he can use other funding to keep the war afloat for a while at least. And my guess is this would actually be a boost for Bush and the 'Pubs if the Dems were stupid enough to try it.
I think the plan the Dems ARE laying out sounds pretty viable to me…and the hearings alone will be a huge boost. Its just not going to happen tomorrow. Give it some time before you jump the Dems and start accusing them of selling out.
-XT
Actually, “surge” is a euphemism for “reinforce”. When troop strength is low you must reinforce them lest the enemy force you to “redeploy”. 
But is was ok for Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid to call on the President to start redeploying our troops in 2006 within a few months and now they say nothing about getting our troops out of Iraq. That makes no sense. Plus, it is not a kook idea to cut off funding for the war. I don’t think Rep. Rangel, Rep. Kucinich and others in the anti-war caucus are kooks. They were elected by the people.
Of COURSE it was ‘ok’ for them to do that…its STILL ‘ok’ for them to do that in fact. AFAIK, they ARE still calling on Bush to start to redeply our troops…and they will probably continue to call on him to do so for the duration of his fucked up term. What you don’t seem to be able to grasp is that this is about all they CAN do, in the short term…other than what they ARE doing, holding hearings and such and getting their respective ducks in a row. Cutting funding is not an option at this point, because of the things already pointed out to you…namely that they couldn’t do realistically (i.e. they wouldn’t get it through unless every Dem stood shoulder to shoulder and voted for it…something not likely to happen), if they DID manage to pull it off it would be political suicide for the Dems, and that, having killed themselves it would do no good as Bush would still not withdraw the troops. He’d find other ways to find funds in the defense budget, at least in the short term.
It is painfully obvious that it makes no sense to you. I don’t know what more to tell you. A good indication that it DOES make sense (to others) is that no one in this thread is taking up your cause, despite the fact that several people in this thread are also die hard Dems AND left wingers. That should tell you SOMETHING at least.
Kucinich IS a kook my friend…especially if he thinks its realistic to cut funding in the way you are laying out in your OP. Its completely unrealistic and divorced from reality to think that the Dems could cut all funding to the military (which is what it would take to ACTUALLY get the troops out of Iraq in the face of the 'Pubs AND the President)…and that doing so wouldn’t be the equivelent of putting a gun to the collective heads of the Democrats and pulling the trigger politically.
-XT
You would think so, but Democrats are notorious for this kind of thing. Some of them are so demand so much ideological purity that they criticize people who share their views much more than they criticize the people who oppose them. I’m sure you’ve seen this before.
Next time somebody asks me for an example of a non-sequitur, I may show them these two sentences. Rangel is the one who keeps proposing we reinstate the draft. He’s a capital-K Kook.
I meant to comment on this also: The Democrats took power Thursday. It is now Monday. This rush to judgment is silly.
So if I might take the liberty to summarize what you said, we are going to allow more brave US soldiers to die in Iraq because of politics … and peolple accept this. How sad.
Yeah, Kucinich is a kook. He was right way, way too soon.
No fan I of Nancy Pelosi.
But c’mon. This is hardly a fair critique. Rushing headlong into any major change like this, a week into the Democrats’ control of Congress, would be utterly foolish. And Ms. Pelosi, while (in my view) wrong-headed about many basic policy issues, is not foolish.
Congress’ control of the purse-strings can be an effective tool to move the President, but it’s not a precision instrument. It doesn’t replace the President as C-in-C.