Story here. Of course, last time they tried this Bush vetoed it. Any chance they can override a veto this time?
And did they have to specify April Fool’s Day?!
Of course! April Fool’s!
So long as every time the pull a stunt like this, they peel off more support, they should keep after it. If the Pubbies can’t read the tea leaves, sooner or later they can read the handwriting on the wall.
Used to think the idea of impeachment was as far away as the moon. Now I think it no further than Hubble, and closing.
If there is any thing resembling a mandate it is to end this war. 70 % of Americans want out and Bush says …no. Does a president have a right to ignore his people.
The Repubs are figuring out their election is going to be determined by getting us out of Iraq.
One reason for the votes is to have a public record of who still backs the war.
Constitutionally, yes.
Ignoring Congress is another matter.
So I guess we should amend the Constitution to remove the veto power from the President when you, personally, disfavor its use?
Great. Can you provide a list of who we should consult if you happen to be unavailable? We’ll need home and work numbers. Thanks.
Its early here and I’m sleepy. I can’t find anything that even implies anyone is advocating a constitutional amendment for anything at all. What am I missing?
I just came across this in the Guardian’s coverage
Wow. Still, I suppose that’s the voice of experience speaking.
Is there a point, before the supermajority, where support for troop withdrawal would be so strong that Bush would have to let it stand? Or has he no choice now but to dig his heels in and veto any and all subsequent attempts?
Hell, if the House comes up with a bill of impeachment, he’ll simply add a signing statement that it makes him President for Life.
They should do this every month until Bush either signs it or they get the votes to override. The people elected Democrats to end Iraqalypse, the Democrats owe the people an honest effort to do so. Maybe this time they come up 20 votes short of overriding, maybe next time 17 short. Those that don’t vote to end it can answer to their constituents.
“Senator, there’s a…rather large and surly gathering of your constituents outside…”
“Good Lord! Look at them all! Any breakdown by party?”
“Well, sir, roughly, the Democrats are the ones with the torches and the Republicans are the ones with the pitchforks…”
“And the Independents?”
“The one with the noose, sir.”
Well, if it’s not the removal or modification of the President’s veto power, it’s unclear what is being suggested by this exchange:
I believe friend BG is advancing the extraordinary notion that the President ought to be mindful of the will of the people, as embodied in Congress
Plus the signing statements, the extraordinary claims of executive privilege…
The question was does the president have the right to do so. The answer is absolutely yes. If Congress overrides the veto, the answer would be different.
Plus his claims that we need to let the generals run the war. Then ,when a general disagrees with whats going on his career is ended. The generals are not running the war. The generals that still agree with the neo cons are.
If that’s so, perhaps the word “right” in the quote above should be replaced by the word “ought,” eh?
The sentence would become grammatically unsound, but the idea that “ought to” was the key principle in play would be clear.
I’m all for Congress doing this. Whatever will get us to start our exit suits me just fine. I think the Webb amendment (not sure what bill it’s attached to) has a better chance of success, though. That requires Bush to increase the “rest time” that the troops are given-- IIRC, it would be 1:1 combat:rest for active duty and 1:3 combat:rest for reserves. That wouldn’t end the war, per se, but it would make Bush draw down troops.
The key thing, in my mind, is to get the drawdown started. I think we’re just giving the Iraqis a crutch in terms of their getting their political act together. If they want a civil war, which they seem to, there really isn’t much we can do to stop them. And, as I’ve said in other thread, that doesn’t necessarily reflect poorly on them-- very few countries come into being without some sort of civil war erupting. Seems to be part of our nature to have to work things out by fighting.
Congress will continute to dither and navel-gaze until it becomes so painfully clear that to do anything else is going to cost them their individual seats. Then, it won’t be a slim majority by which the bill passes, but by a pretty large margin (you’ll always have those who will support the President - “My President, right or wrong.”)