Mrs. Cad is watching The View and SOTH Pelosi is spouting off about the war. I hate to tell the most powerful person in the legislative branch this but the Constitution gives sole power to declare war to Congress and the War Powers Act of 1973 says that any prolonged military action oversea needs the approval of Congress. In other words Madame Secretary: Doesn’t CONGRESS control whether or not we’re at war?
So don’t talk about how we should not be at war in Iraq and then do nothing about it. I understand how the other mouthbreathers in Congress claim impotence at stopping the juggernaut that is G.W.'s war effort, but I don’t think that you, Ms. Pelosi. are impotent. You are the Speaker of the House for God’s sake. Act like it and do something other than bitching.
That should be Madame Speaker, rather than Madame Secretary, I’m thinking.
As to the meat of it, once the festivities are underway (and in my view, they never should have commenced without a Congressional Declaration of War, but that’s another argument entirely), I’m not sure the Constitution places Declarations of Not-at-War in the hands of Congress.
Anyway, it’s The View. Shouldn’t this be in Cafe Society? Not to be junior-modding, or anything.
Pelosi isn’t going to do anything, with Congressional approval ratings lower than Bush’s.
As long as she spouts off rather than acts, she can avoid fucking up Iraq worse than it is now. If she were to do anything like cut off funding, then the resulting bloodbath will take a good deal of effort to ignore (see Viet Nam/Kampuchea). Better to throw a bone to the anti-war faction with some speeches, and then pretend.
9/11 gave the Bush administration the equivalent of having nekkid kiddie diddling pictures of every single member of Congress. Why some of my left-of-fascist brethren keep carping on the war vote tells me they know nothing about being held over a barrel like that. I don’t, either, but at least I understand the political climate under which their supposed caving took place.
Our politicians seem like hypocrites because we demand it.
Congress, alone, does not determine whether we are at war or not. The resolution authorizing the war in Iraq was passed by Congress AND signed by the President. That authorization is law. To change the law, Congress and the President must agree to change the law, or Congress must override a veto. The chances of those happening before January 2009, at which time we get a new president, are pretty much zero.
Under ‘normal’ circumstances, this is how it would work:
Here’s how the Democrats (or Democratic partisans) think it would work in real life:
Of course, this whole fantasy is based upon the premise that the Democrats care about ending the war. Talk about building a castle on sand.
Since when do we care about foreigners dying en masse? Also: damn that anti-war faction. Who do they think they are anyway? They’re only like what, 25% of the population or something…
But sarcasm aside, that is a very important point you just made. The pretending is going to last forever. My only question is what happens in 2012 when we’re still in Iraq? I mean, even the U.S. electorate will have to say to themselves that something funny is going on around here. Unless the Dems are smart enough to find a way to reduce the U.S. casualties to the point where no one back home even cares anymore, like by pulling back to the bases or something.
Congress’s approval ratings - which probably have a lot to do with the fact that the war is still going on - are irrelevant, since representatives are elected by their home districts and not the nation at large.
Congress hasn’t declared war in decades. They, or the executive branch or both, have decided that’s not really a necessary part of the process anymore.
I have a genuine question that I know will be ignored, dismissed, and tossed aside but I’ll try asking anyway: What exactly do you expect Pelosi, or Congress, to do when the party doesn’t have sixty votes in the Senate to override a veto and force the President’s hand?
The Legislature has sent bills to the President’s desk calling for timetables for withdrawal which have been vetoed. The House and Senate Republicans did not support an override. It seems to me that expectations that people have of Pelosi are ridiculously high and, in some cases, completely unreasonable. Every effort to end the war by Democrats in the Legislative branch has been railroaded by Republicans. Every single, goddamned effort.
Past Congresses (which Pelosi was not in charge of) gave the President a go-ahead to start the war. This Congress has tried to tell the President to withdraw the troops but he’s vetoed these plans. Congress does have the power to cut off funding for the troops but Bush has indicated he would keep them in Iraq anyway, knowing that Congress would not allow them to run out of supplies in the field.
So as long as Pelosi is stuck with a President who’s holding our troops hostage and doesn’t have enough votes to override his veto, what are her options?
I think what the OP is stating isn’t that he expects the House to be able to bring the “war” to a conclusion. I think he wants the Democrats to take a stand on the “war”, thus painting the continued armed operations as clearly the responsibility of the President, and his Republican backers.
The trouble is that everyone realizes that the continued armed operations in Iraq are necessary, whatever original value the “war” may have had. So the Democratic leadership is having trouble deciding just what to do about this. If they act like they want immediate cessation, they will be painted as fools, and they won’t get their way. If they act like they want phased reductions, they won’t easily get their way, and they run the risk of (as was pointed out by marshmallow) looking like they don’t want to fund the troops, potentially causing casualties that could have been prevented with “proper” funding. They can’t force the President to bring the troops home any other way. So, despite the sharp rhetoric that preceded the last congressional elections, they really don’t have much they can do, except bide their time and try to score political points with the media and the public.
Unless, of course, they get a sudden bout of strong spine, and are willing to take a chance. And when was the last time you saw the majority party in Congress willing to do that?
I know it’s confusing because the media acts as if the Democrats need Bush’s permission to to end the war or, failing that, they need to get a veto proof majority. But that is false. If the Dems wanted, they could simply tell Bush that the only bill he’s going to receive will have timetables in it and if he doesn’t like that he can go suck an egg. They simply choose not to, circling back to my post #7.
And what happens when Bush says “Fine, stop supplying the troops. I’m still not withdrawing them”? Bush has already shown he’s willing to let Americans die in Iraq and this way he gets to blame somebody else for their deaths. In reality, after the first few dozen casualties, Congress would break and restore funding.
Exactly. Except that the chances of that happening even after 2009 are close to zero, too. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all on record that they want to keep at least some troops in Iraq indefinitely (or at least beyond their first term in office). So, unless someone else wins the Dem nomination (possible, but highly unlikely), we’re stuck with troops in Iraq for some time to come. Now, things might change between now and 2009, but unless they do, that’s where we stand.
I’m no fan of Ms. Pelosi, but I don’t see anything hypocritical here. She’s stuck trying to get something thru Congress (ie, thru a GOP filibuster in the Senate) and that Bush will sign into law.
An interesting note, though: Since Congress is given the sole power to declare war (and, one would presume) to undeclare it, can the President veto a bill which revokes the AUMF? I’d be interested in hearing from any Constitutional scholars on this, but my guess is the answer is: we don’t know, since it’s never been tested.
But I don’t see where Congress is given the “sole” power to declare war. Art I Sec 8 says Congress “shall have the power to” … “declare war,” “raise and support armies,” “lay and collect taxes,” and so on.
If one were to argue that ONLY Congress has a say in declaring war, then it must stand to reason that ONLY Congress can raise taxes, create armies, coin money, etc. WITHOUT the concurrence of the President. If that’s the case, then our legislative process has been seriously f-ed up for the last 230 years.
Well, whether our legislative process has been f-ed up for 230 years is an interesting question. But let’s look at it another way: Can the prex veto a declaration of war?
The issue over “declaring war” is a red herring. Stop bothering with it. No war was declared here. And the President is perfectly capable of utilizing troops in military action without specific authorization of Congress (citations too numerous to bother with).
The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He tells them where to go, and what to do there. Congress could, I suppose, pass a law making the use of the military in Iraq illegal, in which case we could end up with an interesting case of constitutional proportions, but let’s face it, that ain’t gonna happen.
The reason Congress’ approval ratings are so low is because they HAVEN’T cut off funding. If they had the balls to cut Bush off at the knees their ratings would skyrocket.