The Speaker may be about to show Dubya a different finger.
From the Associated Press this morning:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said newly empowered Democrats will not give President Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, hinting they could deny funding if he seeks additional troops.
"If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request, we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now," she said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
"The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them. But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it and this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
Tough stuff, and given the insecurity-driven fantasies to which the Bushites seem wedded, probably necessary, too. But unfortunately, not all Democrats are on board:
Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it would be a "tragic mistake" if Bush chooses to increase troops. But Biden, D-Del., said cutting off funds was not an option.
"As a practical matter there is no way to say this is going to be stopped," Biden said regarding a troop increase, unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in convincing Bush the strategy is wrong.
Biden added that it probably would be an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers if Democrats were to block Bush's efforts as commander in chief after Congress had voted to authorize going to war.
"It's unconstitutional to say, you can go, but we're going to micromanage," Biden said.
Biden probably has some jealousy issues to work out here as he and Pelosi fight to be more-antiwar-than-thou… but he may have a legal point. Really, though, who cares? It's not like the Bushites ever let acting unconstitutionally stand in their way. Give 'em a dose of their own medicine, I say — draw the line and let them fight it in the courts if they want.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
a swopa zed?
zed’s most certainly not dead.
Pelosi putting the boots to the petulant pResident is perfect politics.
Also, more proof W doesn’t give a shit;
http://us.cnn.com/2007/POLITIC…..index.html
why not just pass a “Sense of the Congress” which says ‘We are not at war with Iraq – we are not at war with Afghanistan’ – we are NOT at War? with anybody – wouldn’t that cut his little Commander-In-Chief legs out from under him?
Biden is a moron.
How about congressional Democrats (hint: this means you, Joe)?
Joe Biden’s got a long way to go to redeem himself for allowing Clarence Thomas onto the SCOTUS.
Biden IS a moron, but he comes across as perfectly reasonable and making reasonable points. I stumbled onto Press the Meat this morning by accident (the TV was left on NBC after the football game last night.) I was struck by how reasonable Biden’s point seemed to be.
I know it’s bullshit because I am an active consumer of news. I get my information from the ‘net and blogs, where information and opinion gets parsed and put in context. However, the majority of Americans are passive consumers of news, so they believe what they are fed. No wonder these douchebag pundits are everywhere. They all SOUND reasonable and credible, even if they are totally not.
I agree wholeheartedly. Make Gonzales have to argue that you can’t do unconstitutional stuff in wartime.
Oh, and Biden? STFU. The power of the purse is the only power you got. Shut up and use it. Otherwise, you are just a rubber stamp for the executive.
One of the real benefits of having a woman as Speaker of the House is that for once, perhaps ironically, Congress may reclaim its gonads. If it takes Mama Pelosi to show America how to swing a purse, that’s okay by me.
America, Grandma’s home to save the family from our deadbeat drunken loser dad. It’s about time.
Power of the purse, indeed.
Hold on here — I dislike corporate analogies, but, as I read the Constitution, Congress is the board of directors when it comes to war, and the commander in chief is the CEO. Now, given the corporate model, who has the real power here?
Congress (and the Bidens in it) are abdicating their power, and responsibility to the American people.
Irrespective of whether the prez wants a “surge”, the Congress should shut off the money to fund the Iraq war. I hear the argument that my party the Dems don’t want to do this for fear it will be viewed as cut and run or not supporting the troops or some such nonsense. I mean this is not some machismo sporting event.
The other day, I saw my first Biden 2008 bumper sticker. I only noticed it because I was staring at the crazy couple inside the car shrieking at each other. The dispute involved a loud discussion over whether he was more of a stupid mother****** than she was a lying sack of s***. When the light changed, and they angrily peeled out, I noticed the Biden sticker on the back of the car. I’m not sure if the Biden supporter was the stupid mother****** or the lying sack of s***. Perhaps it was both of them.
From swopa’s post:
WTF?
Call me stoopid but I don’t see Pelosi’s and Biden’s statements as being in opposition to one another. Pelosi is not saying Bush can’t order more troops for a surge. She is saying that if he wants money for ,MORE troops, he is going to have to say why and explain exactly what he’s going to do with it. It’s like asking mom for more allowance. She’s going to say, “I gave you $100 billion last week. What did you spend it on? Oh, you bought ice cream for all your friends. Was that wise? So, you have only $10 billion left. You’re going to have to make that stretch or change your plans.” That doesn’t cut off money to troops that has already been allocated for them. It forces Bush to live within his means. If he goes ahead with his escalation and it ends up shortchanging troops already in theater, it goes on HIS head.
As for Biden’s remarks, it’s true that we are not going to cut off moeny for troops that are already there. And there is no need to micromanage. After all, that is what the military are supposed to do. They are the experts. But if Bush is bent on pursuing a reckless foreign policy with our money and resources, he has to justify it. Presumably, a responsible executive would not dream of coming before congress to ask for money for a dumb idea because, presumably, a responsible congress would not tolerate such a thing. Well, we had an irresponsible congress for 5 of the 6 past years and the irresponsible president has gotten away with murder. All that is changed now.
Pelosi’s and Biden’s statements are complementary and show two different sides of the same argument.
no contradiction.
No, NEVER. I cannot violently disagree more (with this one point, in particular — the rest is golden, as usual). The Democratic party, more so than ever, must be the party of the Constitution. It IS our country; it IS what we are. To go away from it has been the horror that is this authoritarian administration — which is NOT what we are. We must not behave that way under any circumstances.
The reeking hypocrisy of it all:
U.S. puts squeeze on Iran’s oil fields
A campaign to dry up financing for projects poses a threat to Tehran’s ability to maintain exports, analysts say.
http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..-headlines
Fred Hiatt has a mealy-mouthed editorial about the escalation in the WaPo today. Significant lowlight:
Without a surge, Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman warn, the war will be lost.
This is a serious argument, and the two senators have been principled and even courageous in making it.
This B.S. needs to be slapped down, hard.
The general model of how a war works is that Congress must give their approval to go to war- after that- they have little to say about HOW the war is managed- but they retain the power of the purse and are able to stop the thing altogether if it gets of track..
Pelosi want to approve the ONGOING troop commitment while disallowing any increases..Biden is probably right in saying that she can’t do that- but it may be good politics nonetheless if it creates the expectation that Clusterfuck needs to justify his increases.
oregondave @ 14
Now that Horse-denture Joe has unleashed the awesome juggernaut that is Biden ‘08, he percieves preznit powers a bit differently, and is less inclined to dilute them. After his primary bitch-slapping in the cornfields of Iowa and the maplefarms of New Hampshire, he might feel a little differently. Joementum 2.0! Joementum 2.0!
OK @ 12..A few days ago Barney Frank was asked about cutting off the money. He made the point that the defense appropriation was passed and Bush has the money to spend however he wants. If the $100 million extra is denied, Bush will strip the money from elsewhere.
I think it will be like trying to turn an aircraft carrier; it’s going to take time. The start will be the continued expose of waste and corruption. I think it is possible to generate a public mood to impeach Bush.
Impeaching him and removing him from office might “stop a president from conducting his war”.
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 18
THAT B.S. does, indeed, need to be slapped down hard. The continued education of the American public on the nature of that region (coupled with the simple fact that the war is already lost), will aid in forwarding the smack down. But it does require the audience to be a willing participant in its own education. That is the tricky part. For six years, and longer, the public has been content to believe what stuffed shirts such as Hiatt have written. That’s a tough habit to break with only something as ductile as the truth.
What will the pugs do with all those rubber stamps, one wonders?
I just watched Nancy Pelosi’s interview on CBS Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer. I would pay good money to anyone who can point to as good and reasonable an interview with the likes of Denny Hastert. What a breath of fresh air she is! Composure and poise personified! Can we just elect her President? I’d sure rather see her as our first female President than I would Hillary. In fact, I’ve stated before that I would not vote for Hillary due to the fact that she is much too willing to give away our right to freedom of expression (i.e.-the flag burning proposal.) Gore is still my hope for a Presidential Candidate, but if he absolutely and positively won’t run regardless that many would like to draft him, I certainly would not be opposed to a run from Pelosi as either VP or President, maybe paired with my second choice, Edwards, or Obama for that matter. She is certainly eminently qualified. Although it’s still quite early, and we don’t know yet what the Republiscams will do to derail her, she is impressive, and I’m glad she’s on our side!
I want to see my party bring the troops home and restart the Middle East process. Less will not do. Oh… and I want accountability and justice for Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, Lieberman and the rest. And I want AIPAC thoroughly investigated.
What Congress does, they can undo.
What is wrong with Joe Biden? He wants to hold Congress to the “letter of the law” on the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002? Reading through it (ugh), the stuff at the end where Bush is required to report on the status of the war to Congress ever 60 days hasn’t been followed. Bush isn’t following the resolution, so why is it still valid?
Not to mention Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs, so which UN resolutions need to be enforced still? From the looks of it the mission as laid out by the resolution has been fulfilled, meaning the current Iraq Occupation is a new endeavor well beyond the scope of what Congress authorized.
Biden is such a wanker for debating from the Bush government’s side of things. This isn’t some intellectual game, this is serious business. Which is why I hate Biden, he can say good things sometimes but he never, ever acts the right way.
“Really, though, who cares? It’s not like the Bushites ever let acting unconstitutionally stand in their way. Give ‘em a dose of their own medicine, I say — draw the line and let them fight it in the courts if they want.”
Stooping to their level should not be an option.
John Swifty, Holy Joe’s editorial in the Post on 12/29 attracted 37 pages of comments, most all negative.
So far today, Fred Hiatt has 3 pages, here’s my contribution:
QUOTE This is a serious argument, and the two senators have been principled and even courageous in making it. UNQUOTE What makes this argument serious, Fred? Those two self-serving clowns have been wrong about Iraq since 9/11…just like you. How about getting some serious advice from the folks who have been right, for a change?
By ifthethunderdontgetya | Jan 7, 2007 11:26:34 AM | Request Removal
The tide of public opinion has turned, and now we should drill that fact into the thick skulls of the Beltway pundits. (Note for new WaPo commenters: your formatting options are scarce..for instance, ‘ and ” do not appear, you can’t use links or line breaks. But you can get your opinions across :)
Swopa -
Post title plus pic = priceless ***g***
Ok, I read this site every day, but have never posted before.. first off, I don’t think that it’s Unconstitutional to have the Congress and Senate provide oversight on the President during a time of War..including cutting funds.
Also, usually I really love the posts here.. but you’ve gotta be kidding me when ya say that it’s ok to do something UNCONSTITUTIONAL because “the Bushies do it all the time.” And that we should “give them a dose of their own medicine.”
Hell no! One of the main reasons I think that Bush and Co. should be thrown out of the White House NOW, is their attacks on the Constitution.
For the Dems. to do the same thing, is to just follow the dangerous and stupid precedent that Bush Co. has started, of breaking the principles that has kept this Country a Democracy, for the past 200 years.
Also, that “they do it, so we should too” logic, sounds more like something you’ld read on a Wingnut blog, not the usual quality that I see here.
Sorry to be harsh, I really like the Site. But, when someone talks casually about ignoring the Constitution, I gotta speak up.
ifthethunderdontgetya @
30
Oh, and it’s a good one. Rock on!
I may have missed it but did anyone give a total count for how many times between all of these programs that the Israel-tactical/nuc-Iran issue was asked about?
From Think Progress:
Indeed, as Pach said above, “America, Grandma’s home”
‘Hair Plug’ Biden = AssClown Majorus
Steve @ 21
I still say that John Dean had the right idea regarding impeachment…that is, impeach his lieutenants and officers first. Abu Gonzales is the most likely candidate to start with, since I believe we already have enough on him to impeach him. Then we have a plethora of others-Steven Hadley, my favorites-Michael Chertoff and Karl Rove, perhaps General Michael Hayden, just to name a few.
P.S. Does anyone really think that the asshole sitting in the President’s chair will really deign to justify himself to Congress, much less to a woman speaker?
oregondave @ 35
TP is good this morning! I particularly like the idea of a governing body actually
considering the prospect of Global Warming. It warms my heart. Thank God for SF Liberals!
It is the specific duty of Congress to control the President’s activities as Commander of the armed forces. They control the money. No money, no war. Simple as that. What we are hearing from Biden is “don’t blame us, we can’t stop him…”, which is a total misrepresentation of the authority granted Congress by the Constitution. They can stop him in a single day. One piece of legislation backed up with a little Congressional spine would do the job nicely. Yes of course, the President can veto any legislation Congress may send to him, and Congress can override any such veto as prescribed by the Constitution. What the problem is at this point is that neither the President nor the Constitution are really very good for hiding behind, by the Congress…
Swopa, I read your post on Biden, and I still don’t get it. Can you elaborate a bit more on how you see him getting a backbone?
johnSwifty @
16
Some of the most important words these days are …I support the President’s authority to … when it is a matter of respecting the Constitutional Law that is our foundation.
MarcInLos Angeles at 32: Amen! And thanks for saying that!
MarcInLos Angeles @ 32
Thanks for weighing in. Now that you’ve broken the ice, I hope to hear more from you as time goes by.
o/t & apologies if previously noted:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0107.html
MarcinLos Angeles — first, a hearty welcome to you for stepping out into the comments. Glad to have you.
Second, my interpretation of Swopa’s post, specifically “draw the line”, is that Swopa calls for Congress to do what it is specifically authorized to do under the Constitution. Congress is solely responsible for allocation and expenditures of revenues, and it is solely responsible for lawmaking. In drawing a line, Congress should use the tools it holds exclusively — like cutting off funding for any military action other than existing and limited action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revising/revoking-reissueing the AUMF.
Biden is wrong if he believes that the Senate has no powers at this point to check the Presidency; hell no, this is EXACTLY what the Senate is supposed to do, along with its budget and lawmaking powers. The Senate is supposed to provide a check-and-balance on the Presidency, and it does so through its inherent and Constitution powers.
Unless that’s the kind of presidency for which Joe Biden is running — an unchecked imperial presidency. King Biden? Hell-f*cking NO.
I have to disagree with Biden’s premise. If, through oversight it can be found that BushCo lied to get us INTO the war, then all bets regarding the pResident’s war powers in this case are moot.
Ann in AZ @ 42
definitely speak up when you see us veering off the path.
There is nothing unconstitutional about congress cutting off funding after it’s declared war. also, there has been no formal declaration of war. There is nothing in the constitution that expressly forbids congress the power that is claimed by Pelosi, and in fact everything about the constitution indicates that this is the very power the founders intended to give to the congress. The power of the purse is absolute. Congress controls ALL funding, period. Joe Biden is an idiot who clearly doesn’t even kind of understand the constitution. After reading some of the comments here, I wonder if anyone does. Seriously, there is no argument that can be made via the constitution that says that the President can force congress to fund anything. Ever. He only controls troop movements. He doesn’t pay them. He doesn’t buy munitions.
Rayne @ 45
This also applies to any/all of the illegal wiretap, data-veillance and TIA programs that fall under approval by appropriations. Congress needs to take all of their responsibilities seriously.
A couple of days ago when Biden first started talking about how escalation was a bad idea, somebody (I don’t recall who) commented that although he was right, you could count on Biden to say something stupid the next chance he got.
I guess what I’m saying is: Good call.
rumi @ 41
Exactly. I’ve said it before here — the meme we can put out there as antidote to the Reichwinger’s noise machine, and drive home, is that we are Constitutional Patriots. No one can take anything away from us in that regard, or question our patriotism anymore, unless we let them get away with it. No more. It’s time to redefine the terms, on our terms.
rumi @ 41
Absolutely! If this congress accomplishes nothing other than curtailing and perhaps reversing some of the runaway powers that the Executive branch has managed to grab under this administration, that would be a net gain.
Even if they just attacked and wholly refuted the legitimacy of the signing statement concept, THAT would be huge.
I just want the lawmakers to assert, unequivocally, that this idea about a President saying what he ‘intends’ to do with a law or what she ‘interprets’ what a law means is absolute crap. That is absolutely NOT an Executive power and it is by virtue of utilizing the great design of the Constitution that the Democratic congress should be able to abolish that practice. I hope they do!
Does the Senate have power without Lieberman’s vote wrt the war? Remember, Joe has a job because he is pro-war.
Soullite @ 48
Just so. Actually, I don’t think cutting off funding is necessarily the best move; what IS the best move is to explicitly tie all future funding to the goals of preparing what minimal Iraqi defense force we can (throw a sop to the ISG there, just to create a little anti-Bush bipartisanship) and getting the fuck out of there.
rumi — most definitely, including the opening of postal mail without a warrant.
Clearly all of illegal wiretap, data-veillance and TIA programs without a warrant are violations of the Fourth Amendment. I’m now very ticked about the postal mail opening since the POTUS’ signing statement addressing this is tantamount to writing laws, clearly not within the POTUS’ purview under the Constitution.
We already have a Constitutional crisis on our hands, and there is no clear indication we have the political willpower to address it.
Can someone show me where the funding came from to stage/deploy the recent naval foundation of force in the Gulf? The one that might be ready to strike Iran?
Can I really be the first to say this?
I can’t do nothing for you man
Flavor Flav got problems of his own.
BASS IN YOUR FACE! KICK THAT SH17, HOMIE!
Swopa, this may be a first- quoting PE in a FDL post title :-) You just made my weekend.
Rumi – Funding for the naval deployment will be found in Halliburton’s petty cash. Or Cheney’s shotgun shell fund.
They will hide the money everywhere but in the congressional record.
I fail to see how it is unconstitutional for Congress to place stipulations on how the money it releases is spent. In fact, Congress does that every time it passes a budget; that check and balance (do you know that buzzword, Joey?)is the whole reason why the legislature CONSTITUTIONALLY controls the purse strings.
Now would be a excellent time for Plugs Biden to be a team player, but he won’t do that because he is not a team player. He’s staking out his turf, showing everybody how smart and different he is so he can run for president again. Hawk Biden is putting his own interests ahead of his country’s interests again. Biden is a lot like Lieberman.
If it’s unconstitutional to vote “no,” Sen. Biden, then why have a vote? Why have a Congress at all?
Have the vote. Vote NO. Go from there.
Margot @ 61
The good news, of course, is that Biden does NOT speak for Nancy Pelosi, nor for the rest of the Democratic Party.
Margot @ 61
I think that was the very first question the Neo-con think tanks posed for themselves right after the requisite circle jerk.
johnSwifty @ 52
So what would be wrong with starting with his enablers like Gonzales and Hadley, et al. Impeachment of a President is a long and arduous process, but I think it would not be as long and arduous to impeach his underlings, and I’m virtually certain it would get much more support.
Ann in AZ @ 64
No argument here. I would like to hear from CHS, LHP or anyone else with a constitutional law background; but, I believe you are correct.
Are there any Republicans willing to stand in line behind Pelosi? (except for McCain Lieberman, of course, since it is their war.
johnSwifty @ 63
The Rethug Congress was needed to lend false legitamacy to fascism, rubberstamping, payola and the furtherance of Golf.
johnSwifty,
That mental image is gonna stick around for awhile….ewww! ;)
Dr.Puma,
The good news, of course, is that Biden does NOT speak for Nancy Pelosi, nor for the rest of the Democratic Party.
Which must be why they have him on so many talking head shows. The Un-Democrat.
65johnSwifty:
Well, the original idea came from John Dean, and I doubt a better expert in Constitutional law can be found.
Biden needs to understand the conditions of the AUMF have been met. That war is over. The President is now waging Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (G.Vidal) and must be stopped.
John Warner (R-Va) first spoke this summer about the need for a new AUMF in order for the President to proceed on legal, constitutional footing. Let’s get some reasonable GOP Senators on board (which may be what Biden’s trying to say in his roundabout, convoluted, egocentric way) with a completely new AUMF. Define the mission & the purpose of our current war, clarify our strategy, and Powellize the exit. Then: pass it in the House and the Senate. I’m laying odds it’ll never happen.
.
The pearl-clutching responses to Swopa’s call to litigate this President are rather overwrought. Congress is going to need to take the Executive Branch to court sooner or later — let’s start now! There’s nothing extra-constitutional about the two elected branches in court in front of the third.
… oh, and:
Troops
Home
NOW
johnSwifty @ 65
JohnSwifty: go read John Dean’s post about this at Findlaw. He’s been ahead of this curve for the last 3 weeks or so- and I think he should know from impeachment.
Ann in AZ @ 64
Absolutely, in my opinion. My statement isn’t meant to be surrendering to claims of power by the theory of unitary executive. I’m an advocate for respecting Constitutional law by upholding the responsibilities and rights granted by it. Impeachment is one of the tools provided to hold elected and some appointed officials to account for their actions. To me, it’s a matter of being our responsibility to impeach.
Speaking of mental images, here’s Senator Walnuts!
Ann in AZ @
25
Ann – Couldn’t agree more and fyi my car has been sporting a bumbersticker -Nancy Pelosi -
President 2007 for the past ten days with considerable positive reactions. The matching buttons are great too – all from cafepress.com with quick delivery. Here in California, even in my conservative neck of the woods, Pelosi has made everyone proud. Check out the cafepress site and go for it! (g)
Ann sez:
I look forward to W’s little smirk at his State of the Union when he has to say, “…Madame Speaker.” Betcha that’s the first line to get a standing ovation, much to Junja’s consternation.
Just wanted to say thank you, for the kind words from some of you about my post, and I appreciate the Welcome!
Also, if it wasn’t clear.. I really liked most of the post by Swopa, but as someone said: ya gotta speak up when you see someone “stepping off the path.”
That’s one of the reasons, that I’m a “leftie.” We actually take responsibility for our Mistakes..and unlike the Wingnuts on their blogs, who won’t admit to any mistakes.. most recently, they’re trying to dodge their attempt to smear AP over Jamil Hussein.
Finally, someone said that we are Constitutional Patriots.. that’s true, and something that should be pushed as a talking point.
Margot @ 68
Sorry, it’s just barely after noon in my time zone. Otherwise, not too cool for Sunday morning coffee, my apologies. But I do think there is some weird sickness emanating from those closeted cabals. It might not, necessarily, be sexual in nature; it is just a much more immediately emotive image than delving into the psychology of group dynamics when you get a bunch of sorry, unloved, power-hungry little boys together in a ‘brotherhood’.
The reason Biden is on all the talk shows is because he can be counted on to say something stupid. And it seems it’s always something that helps the corporate view.
Ann in AZ @ 69
Then I’ll take it. It is Dean’s recent work that makes me type the word ‘authoritarian’ far too frequently. That and, unfortunately, it is constantly applicable.
smiley @ 71
Thanks for the link!
nuff said!
just make a nice little list of the people in congress that are telling us that they don’t care about our vote. note those that inform us they know better than we do. some may listen, but as you can see, don’t count on it.
one joe got lucky by turning on some people to be embraced by others, CT is a place where the people are by percentage, in favor of someone that tells them BS.
another joe doesn’t get much mileage trying to kiss the president’s ass by saying he isn’t going to cut off funding for the scam, and then try to explain why this is good.
got a lot of dumb guys name joe right now.
anyone still think that libby is going to trial? anyone think that the outcome of dog and pony show isn’t being written now? like a screenplay being re written during the filming because the actors are fighting it out behind the scenes with the director. the script is “going thru changes” until the director is satisfied. Perhaps the producer is telling the director what changes to make to satisfy, the production designer needs to stage a new scene, need more money…… the idea that we are going to see a trial that is going to make the watergate hearings look like a little burglary by 5 guys at a hotel, well, come on? are we seriously considering they would allow this information to come to light? they can’t afford to allow people to testify in this as it is. the defense has to use the testimony of people that will directly contradict the story the government has told. they don’t have any choice. this will open the entire (theoretical) conspiracy to review. Fitzgerald has a lot of work, but the things that are going to happen are going to take down a government, just with what little we know now coming out as fact, sworn to by witnesses that worked for those in question. dick is going to have to choose who he implicates in treason. the other smaller fry are going to be telling the truth so as not to be involved in any further treason by order of a superior. each of these people know that someone else knows about their role in this (theoretical) conspiracy. Is there any doubt that the testimony in this trial is going to bring immediate impeachment hearings with number 1 and 2 as primary targets?
we are one stupid lot of people. I consider myself one of the dumbest shits on the planet because I still have hope for the rule of law to return to our country.
TeddySanFran @ 75
SFTeddy – thanks for that delicious mental image – know I’ll be on my feet hooting and hollering doing a Snoopy dance in front of the tube!
Success!
1,111 crazy beachgoers assemble to send a message to Congresswoman Pelosi.
Bartcop says that the dems should tell Dubya now that they will pursue his impeachment for sure if Dubya pardons anybody.
That sounds like a good idea. They can still leave the door open for impeachment should that become expedient. Its a good sound byte that portends a sense of fair play that the public can understand.
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 73
Old and scary!
congress can clearly cut off all war funding- that’s what ended VietNam–the question is rather whether or not congress can PARTIALLY cut off funding and specify where the remaining funding can be spent. I don’t think so- but would love to hear from a constitutional law scholar..
The practical side- of course- is how congress could ENFORCE any restrictions it made.. say they go to court- and seek a court order- would Clusterfuck have to follow said order? WOULD he follow it?
johnSwifty @ 79
John Dean promoted this “impeach the appointees” concept on Countdown last week, as well. Loathe as I am to isolate W from his loving wives, I think Dems should start with Miers. She’ll be gone soon anyway, of her “own accord.” She despises confrontation, and she’s particularly unsympathetic. Not too many defenders of Harriett on either side of the aisle, which would make her the right occupant to start with. Abu next, of course; then Mrs. Homeland Security (Townsend), Mrs. State (Condi) and Mrs. WSJ Op-Ed (Karen).
To quote from that long-forgotten and abandoned – but never repealed – War Powers Act of 1973 [Public Law 93-148]:
A “surge” of at least 20,000 more troops sure sounds like an ‘introduction of Armed Forces into hostilities’ to me, Mr. Pass-the-buck Biden…
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi – that is exactly how the President of the United States should be spoken to by the Speaker of the House, but especially a President with the demonstrated record of bad faith and grievous failure that is the record of federal public servant George W. Bush.
TeddySanFran @ 83
An extra glorious beach morning in the Golden State! Thanks Teddy!
What’s really driving events right now is politics.
It’s interesting- and important- to figure out the limits of power for both the legislative branch and the executive branch in this little face off- but the truth is:
1) There aren’t the votes to impeach Clusterfuck.
2) There aren’t the votes to cut off funding
These are TEMPORARY situations- if he keeps fucking up- the votes will be there- that’s why we’re playin a political game- the american people will actually decide this one–dems will schedule some votes to curb war spending- or prohibit rapid returns to Iraq- or whatever- goopers will have to decide whether or not they can afford to oppose..When enough of em have decided to vote with the sane- then the game is all over for Clusterfuck- without a shot being fired.
TeddySanFran @ 87
Teddy,
I just read smiley’s link over at FindLaw.
It sounds like you are all on the mark. It would be fantastic if someone at the congressional level picked up this ball and ran with it. Are there committee heads who you would like to see start this kind of preceding on their own?
The other day i commented to the effect that all the dems had to do was tell tinpot that he could do whatever he wanted, as long as he could pay for it -get it from existing budget, raise taxes or cut a program – And it sorts seems that is the tact Pelosi will take, but Maliki is doing something that may make any’surge’ tactic irrelevant. He has ordered a large Iraqi force to take over Baghdad. He must have al sadr’s approval. So it looks like the madi army w/o uniforms will stand back while the madi army w/ uniforms takes over the ethnic cleansing. The Sunni’s in Baghdad will be pushed into a few ghettos or chased out of the city and country by the ‘official’ army. Now we are going to see a ‘real’ civil war. One w/ uniforms. And when this becomes clear to the rest of the Sunni world, Al Queda will be saying ‘Thank you Jesus, thank you..” Look for a flood of Sunni recruits into Iraq.
Heh. Bush loses Utah .
Teddy that is a lovely beach scene!
TeddySanFran @ 83
Aww, not so crazy — they’ve got their clothes on!
This is so funny…a guy bass fishing off my docks just got himself what looks like a pounder off my dock and as he was reeling it in he slipped and him and the guy with the net landed in the water. hehe Sometimes the fish wins. I’m only laughing because they weren’t hurt but the fish definitely got away. Just goes to show you.
ps: looked like a seven pounder.
pow wow @ 88
TeddySanFran @ 85
And they have the nerve to talk about Howard Dean!
dave–Clusterfuck already obtained congressional approval to introduce forces- that was the authorization- he needn’t get further approval to raise the troop commitment.
ccmask @
96
Why can’t that happen to Chimpy
oh i get it now!!!
After spending 3 years bungling around in Iraq..you know just kind of driving around and waiting for the bombs to go off..you know that geninus way to win a war..Let’s send more soldiers over there to drive around bagdad or hang out in the green zone…Finally i understand how we will win the war..Billy slaps his forehead! So that’s the answer!
Hold bush’s feet to the fire Nancy..I’ve about had it with this CIC. I could go on and on but I hope you get the idea..more troops? That’s your great idea? Just more troops?.crap..gotta go..grrrr..
oregondave @
95
Where did that IMPEACH! beach photo happen? When? It is cool, and I’m jealous. Minus five F here.
Was Cheney in an impeachable position under Nixon?
rwcole @ 100
rw — the first two paragraphs are more to my point, specifically “and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations” and “Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
As to the matter of introduction, pow pow wrote
The Beach Impeach Project
http://beachimpeach.com/
rwcole @ 100
According to Senator Warner, he does need to come back to Congress for further approval, I thought. Is this not right (as to Senator Warner’s stance?)
Ann in AZ @ 25
he’s waiting to be drafted, he’s has not ruled out running and until it becomes obvious we won’t draft him he won’t rule it out
really, if we want him to run we’re gonna have to ceasar him
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 30
I wonder if anyone counted how many positive to show the graphic comparison
oregon
I believe that means “initial introduction”- not continued introduction- or additional introduction- or whatever..
OT – CNN – The cargo section of the Port of Miami is closed after three people, two of them inside a truck, tried to enter the port illegally, federal law enforcement sources say.
The Congress holds the purse stings to limit the ability of the executive to make war by his own will. This is one of the most salient features of the American Constitution because British kings had long abused the power of raising revenue to fight unpopular wars. In fact, one of the main causes of the English Civil War was Charles I assertion of his right to tax for war without the consent of Parliament under the condition of national emergency. Charles had secretly entered into a treaty to aid the King of Spain against the Dutch. Knowing this war of discretion would be unpopular he made the argument that the interests of the realm were threatened by ‘certain thieves, pirates, and robbers of the sea, as well as Turks, enemies of the Christian name….’ and thereby sought legitimacy for his power over the purse. Charles limited his original taxation for ‘ship money’ to port towns, as was the custom, but later tried to extend it to a general and permanent tax. Over time opposition grew until his power was limited in the Long Parliament.
The rise of the welfare state and the permanent war footing of the United States since the 1940 have created a condition whereby Presidents and their military subordinates can prepare for war and wage war without limit. It is a condition of peacelesssness. In this context we have seen over the last 30 years or more the increased willingness of factions, often ideological, in government agencies and in the White House to wage wars without the consent of Congress or in direct opposition to it. Iran-Contra is a prime example of these ‘independent’ agents.
Bush’s war in Iraq is not a war the United States had to fight; it is not a national war but a princely project-war predicated on a ‘fancied emergency’ identical to that of Charles I 350 years ago. Because Bush was supported in his deception by his kleptocratic political allies (without precedent in the modern world) the machinery of the founding fathers was not in operation. But now the old 18th century engine of justice has started to turn. After all it was invented to control bad men and that is why George Bush has struggled so much against it.
NYT editorial sez Dems need to stay their new course:
perris @ 108
So how do we do that? Any ideas? I signed a petition; it had over 15K signatures when I signed it.
Whoa. How could the administration fund operations that the congress refuses to countenance?
Iran/Contra is a model.
And so is this from Lukery
And here’s the “specific statutory authorization” Congress provided in 2002 under the AUMF, in accordance with the WPAct (from puppethead’s link above):
In my estimation, no way, no how, is policing on ongoing civil war in Iraq (even though of our making) “defending the national security of the United States” and neither is it “enforcing [any] relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.” The (vaguely-written and broad-brush) 2002 AUMF is nevertheless obsolete and moot by its own terms, as some Members of Congress have started muttering out loud.
In that regard, further troop commitments, nevermind current troop commitments, are unauthorized on their face, according to our Constitution and the War Powers Act, in my opinion.
oregondave @ 98
Ann in AZ @ 114
I don’t know how we go about ceasaring gore, any ideas on the board?
Thanks, punaise. Ocean Beach in SFO? The last time I was at Ocean Beach was March, 1976, and it was SNOWING in San Francisco!
do you remember me leaving a comment for suzanne between your #138 and #139 at late night last night regarding Dem leaders and their position on Iran? It isn’t there now……..
The comment included this quote from today’s Jerusalem Post:
Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position.
The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran.
He also said that the use of force against Teheran remained an option.
Hoyer, second only in the hierarchy of the House of Representatives to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is charged with articulating and strategizing on party policy.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S…..e/ShowFull
jeffreyw @ 115
There is a very good diary over at Kos about this. Seems like a patchwork quilt coming together.
John Dean certainly makes a persuasive argument for not going after Bush and Cheney — yet. And, I don’t think we need too much handwringing about whether or not to continue to call for their impeachment. We don’t have to be singing in harmony, or even from the same hymnal (or even take oath of office on the same “holy” book). All our voices add to the critical mass necessary to remove this regime from office.
What’s important is that we know the truth, and keep speaking and writing it and pushing for action on it. As Dean writes,
However it comes about, if we stay committed, there will be justice.
Gore will make a decision to run if he thinks he can win. The days of “drafting” a candidate may be over- that happened when a convention got hopelessly deadlocked as I recall and the party officials decided to throw the vote to someone who was not actually in the running. It could only happen if there is no first ballot victory by any candidate at the convention.
twolf1 @ 111
that’s the first tax gift that has to e returned to this country
the five thousand dollars this moron gave to rich people instead of spending it on port security
that’s the start, let them TRY to fight giving it back
we need all that money back WITH interest
Ann @ 69..I heard John Dean say that on KO and didn’t think much about it, until you brought it up again. I think it may be a really good idea. I had never really considered the fact that impeachment procedures can be applied to all civil officers of the United States. I vote that they start with Gonzales after he lies to Congress again under oath.
rwcole @ 110
Interpretation of the wording and meaning of statutes is the province of the courts. Another good reason for Congress to get this regime into court ASAP.
truth @
5
it’s easy to straddle a fence when you don’t have any balls ……
Pachacutec @
10
It took a woman to mke a man out of England.
Margaret Thatcher.
punaise @
106
it was b_eautiful ! *
the photo should be sent to news organizations world wide. congratulations are in order to all who had a hand in this.
* wish i coulda been there !!!!!
Britain’s Brown suggests policy shift
Brown acknowledged that mistakes were made in the aftermath of the invasion and promised to be “very frank” with President Bush. He also said that Britain is likely to scale down its commitment of troops to Iraq over the next year — even as the White House is considering dispatching thousands more, at least temporarily.
Ed*ard Teller @ 119
I was in brief drive-by mode, didn’t see your comment.
friend of Punaisette was at Beach Impeach with her mom. they’re at the tip of the V of the M.
jeffreyw @
93
Oh, thank you for that link.
I just sent it to someone who opined that the closer to nature a voter was, the more likely he’d vote Republican. He would’t be despoiled by crowded city living conditions, you see.
HAhahahahaha.
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
Scroll down for the 3D version of the map.
Novak: Powell ‘caustic’ over escalation plans.
Dick Cheney and his ideological friends appear to be in open rational disagreement with the War Powers Act of 1973. They believe that the United States should have a ‘kingly’ executive. Honestly I think they are like the evangelicals who think the United States was founded as a ‘Christian nation’. They have reflected on their own inclinations and come up with an interpretation of tradition contrary to history.
Great closeups and ground-level photos of the Impeachment 1,111 here.
These photos convey the serious/joyness of yesterday’s action very well, and also let you see that no participant could see very much of the whole. 100-foot-tall letters!!
…oh, and:
Troops
Home
NOW
Steve @ 124
Steve, thanks, but this is like the third time I’m bringing this up, mainly because I think it’s one of the best ways to get this administration’s attention. Get rid of Gonzales, Chertoff (for sheer incompetence, dereliction of duty, among other things), Hadley (because he seemed to think he should be prosecuted during Fitz investigation, so I think there must be proof of some wrongdoing), Rove’s former assistant, then maybe Rove, the rest will be shaking in their shoes. And since one thing always leads to another, we might get what we want. But just remember, the last time a President was to be successfully impeached, it took two years, and that’s with taped conversations as evidence. Since there’s only two years left of this administration, we’ll probably only have time for the underlings. Still, if this precedent is set, how willing do you think any future presidents’ underlings and officers will be to do his bidding if he asks them to perform illegally or superlegal tasks? Hopefully, it will inhibit some future bad behaviour as well as bringing the current ones to justice. Can you say deterent?
Go read Matt Taibbi, he kicks ass!
Hussein in the Membrane
Hi Swopa,
Good catch re Biden, but what is he thinking? Unconstitutional to exercise oversight?
I gotta agree with JohnSwifty and Marc and everybody re the Constitution. I have great faith in that document. For the sake of our country’s future we dare not take the route of out-weaseling them. I don’t think we have the talent for it, anyway. The mess we are in is not because the Constitution doesn’t work, but because it is being ignored. The One Ring cannot be used for good.
Thunder at 22, OKiddo at 27, soullite at 48, EDP at 48 — these are ways to go, using tools we legally have.
And if Congress finds it cannot control a rogue President with the present Constitution then perhaps it needs amendment, but there is a legal procedure for that, too.
Impeachment of the Underlings would establish bright lines of illegality in all Executive Departments and, imho, could be accomplished much more quickly than impeaching the Big Two. Bush wants a legacy? Let’s give him a great one: impeachable offenses and convictions for his Underlings.
Israel denies it’s planning Iran nuclear attack
U.K. newspaper reports Israel intends to strike up to three targets in Iran
Why is is I believe everything the Israeli and my government tells me? Just not too bright I guess.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16509109/
twolf1 @ 132
Apropos the discussion about jurisdictions: Does this not imply that there will be some congressional say?
Good morning/afternoon fpups!
Totally gratuitous and frivolous observation: Chairman Rangel looked beautiful on This Week this morning.
I watched Speaker Pelosi on Face the Nation, and I was almost swooning. How wonderful it is to have someone in charge who is smart, strong, and unrelenting in her no-bullsh*t attitude!!
I’m walkin’ on sunshine, oh yeah!
And it feels GOOD!!
ccmask @
66
mccain and lieberman are senators. if i remember correctly, funding for anything starts in the house. if pelosi and the house demos set the bill up right, the senators will have to do a fine tap dance to get around it (they can of course, but a strong point can be made and fire applied to the right arses in the process).
TeddySanFran @ 138
Yes. Good. And the clear message that pardons will add to the push for his impeachment.
face the snark
Why is Europe, China, Russia, India, Pakistan and the rest of the Middle East, and for the matter, the rest of the world so silent on the recent rumors that Israel is going to attack Iran?
you remember a week or so ago the president said people would be surprised how well he slept?
that was when other people were dying for his mistake, that was when it was the soldiers and the iraqi’s sacrificing
I bet he’s not sleeping to good now!
I’m pretty sure he’s STEAMING MAD he’s taking an embarrasing beating from palosi every thing he says
man, this palosi babe, she’s much bettter then i had hoped
I so wanted to go to the Beach Impeach but couldn’t make it. Perhaps we can spell out Mission Accomplished soon!!!!
TeddySanFran @
134
I looked carefully through all the pictures hoping they got pix of you! rawk on, Teddy!
johnSwifty @
65
I like it! Max popcorn opps, too. I think Jr will throw happily throw anybody under the bus who isn’t him. Should be quite the all-day show. May need another CSPAN channel “ImpeachTV — all impeachments, all the time.”
Also, several people brought this up, anyone know if Congress can declare the mission accomplished WRT objectives as per the AUMF and shut down the funding?
Ann in AZ.. From my handy Oxford The Supreme Court book “Impeachment once prevailed in England as an important mechanism to check abusive, high-ranking ministers,…” sounds exactly like what is needed today. Start with Gonzales.
hackworth @
67
Due to FEC regulations they needed a large number of individuals for the purpose of receiving and laundering K Street money.
TeddySanFran @
70
Teddy, it wasn’t so much the ‘litigate’ that I was not liking, it was the ‘who cares?’
fahrender @ 142
Fahrender: I thought it originated in the house but the Senate had the final say. My bad, thanks!
john in california @
92
Billions have gone missing and somehow the oil money that was supposed to fund the war has never surfaced. If They were prudent they’d probably have squirrelled some $ away in case Congress ever said no or to fund way-off-budget activities. But with this crew I’d figure they’ve already spent it or pocketed it.
newspaperbrat @
74
BTW, somebody found the link http://www.pelosi07.com, which apparently has expired? but this is what was cached — I’ve grabbed it in case we ever want it ;)
Hot Flash, I hear you that thats how it SHOULD go. But the constitution survives only so long as everyone agrees it does. If they shred the constitution, and they decide to defy it, then passing more ammendments wouldn’t help. Only an extra constitutional remedy can solve the problem of a constitutional crisis. If a one happened, it would be because the President is refusing to acknowledge the will of congress, and denies the Supreme Courts right to force it to. In such a case, it is obvious that the President wouldn’t abide by impeachment or newly enacted laws either. If such an event were to happen, we should all be glad that the national guard and army aren’t in a position to carry out any of the Presidents orders. If you have a hard time believing that these people are capable of it, you don’t know them well enough. Or perhaps you know them too well to understand what we’re dealing with here.
Ann in AZ @
114
http://draftgore.com/
bellumregio @ 133
Elegantly put! May I crib?
Thanks for the LOL on the title, Swopa.
For those who haven’t heard it, the quote is from Public Enemy’s “Can’t Do Nothin’ For Ya, Man!”
I Can’t Do Nothin’ For You, Man!
You want six dollars for WHAT?
I can’t do nothin’ for you, man!
You better, man, kiss my butt!
This is simple: Congress should REVOKE the authorization to use force. Furthermore, as the republican congress did in 1993, give bush 4-6 months to redploy US troops out of Iraq. Done.
.
rwcole @
110
I think one could argue that this would be a new introduction, not a continuance. The original AUMF was against a polity that no longer exists, for aims that have been achieved. This new introduction would be to intervene in a civil war in a new Iraq. It’s a different state–different constitution, different government–occupying the same geographical space. FDR couldn’t use Wilson’s AUMF against the Kaiser’s Germany, after all. He had to get a new one for Hitler’s Germany.
ccmask @ 66
Gordon Smith from Oregon, and Olypia Snowe from Maine are starting to come around
Trent Lott has been sounding a bit too rational to be a repuglican apologist for bush as well
in a few months the whole country will be marching in the impeachment parade
all repuglican congresscritters are gonna face the choice soon:
george bush, or the Constitution of The United States ???
Somebody please tell Biden that oversight does not equal micromanage. Biden is just too stupid for words.
If Biden can find me the Article and Section in which the Constitutional Convention declared that “A declaration of war shall be deemed a blank check”, I’ll go along with him. Until then, it’s hard to see anything unconstitutional about wielding the power of the purse.
Professor Foland @ 164
Beautifully said as usual, except I would still have a hard time going along with No-show Joe, a guy who thinks he has to affect an Indian accent to order at Dunkin Donuts.
ccmask @
104
That’s probably between Dick and Dick, although even with the President I always imagine Cheney would want to be on top.
Biden needs to STFU and sit down. It’s perfectly predictable – he announces his candidacy and starts playing up his centrist bona-fides – but’s it’s also disturbing as hell to watch the Dems (in the Senate, at least) ignore the mandate they were given barely two months ago and start playing nice-nice with a lame-duck administration with A FUCKING 30% APPROVAL RATING!!!
First of all, something to consider. THIS was something Hamas said – “In a recent interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, “The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn’t mean we stay there. They’ll stay there as long as we’re there.”
Pelosi will become House speaker when the new Congress is seated in January.
WND read Pelosi’s remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad’s Saadi, laughing, stated, “There is no chance that the resistance will stop.”
He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would “prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States.”
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would “mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (U.S.).”
“Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam.”
Jaara said vacating Iraq would also “reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them.”
Hamas’ Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would “convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance.”
“The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan,” Abdullah said. “We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel’s confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation.”
Going in to Iraq may have been a choice, and may not have had any real link to the War Against Terror…but it most definitely does now.
You can NOT separate them out, and you can not make decisions without being aware of what the impact of those decisions will be on the people in that region.
This isn’t to say that Iraq is so critical that we have to throw more soldiers and more money into it. Just that we have to get real, look at the real consequences if we withdraw – and if the consequences are significant enough (and I think that providing yet more proof that violence, fear and intimidation will get you what you want is a pretty bad consequence. The insurgents in Iraq are murderous thugs who kill more of their own people than they do any Americans.) then we have to look at what realistic things we can do to stop it.
And there IS a chance that Bush’s plan offers that. I’m not for stupidly wasting more lives, but if they put those soldiers in the right places it could make a huge difference.
And if the Democrats are too short-sighted to see past their own assumptions, then I wouldn’t trust their opinion on what to do in Iraq any more than I’d trust Rumsfeld.