I believe the way to end the US involvement in Iraq is to announce a date certain for ending funding of the war. There is much confusion on how such a strategy would succeed. I think the fundamental confusion is the failure to understand that to defund the war the Congress need not pass any legislation at all. It merely must REFRAIN from passing legislation that funds the war.
But here is the most important part of the equation - the Democratic leadership of the Congress must announce now the date certain when it will no longer fund the Iraq war. It must tell the American People now that the funding will end on x date, and that it is incumbent on the President to adjust his actions accordingly. More.
The Congress must tell the American People NOW that if the troops are left in the field AFTER the announced date it will be the President who has placed our troops in increased danger. It will be the President who does not support the troops.
At MYDD, Chris Bowers admits to being perplexed about this, but finally captures the point:
Are Democrats willing to go to the mat over this? Because Murtha's plan goes through the appropriations process, which must be passed, the final stage of the fight could be a governmental shut-down of sorts, ala the 1995 budget battle, except confined to defense appropriations. I believe this would take place after September 30, the end of the fiscal year, and might in fact be the route Republicans prefer. After all, they have long been arguing that Democrats intend to cut off funding for troops in the field. An immediate stoppage of funds, rather than the gradual process Murtha proposes, might just be the route Republicans want to force this debate. . . .
You finally got it Chris. But what you are NOT getting is that that political battle must start YESTERDAY. Take away the words "immediate stoppage of funds." Announce NOW the date funding ends and the cutoff will not be immediate at all.
And understand this, Bush and Cheney have agreed that the Congress possesses this power:
On congressional opposition:
WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .
GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .
WSJ: You do?
GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress. . . .
"Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse, so they have got a role to play and we certainly recognize that," Cheney said. "But also, you cannot run a war by committee."
I agree. You can't run a war by committee. But you can end one. By not funding it.
And the smart and RIGHT policy for Congress is to announce NOW that after a date certain, it will not fund the Iraq War. Bush and Cheney have already agreed that Congress would be legitimately exercising its Constitutional authority when it does so.
That's what we should be supporting Chris.