Waaah! I'ma go cry now!

Despair! Despair! The supplemental funding bill got watered down. Woe unto us. Abandon hope for surely nothing good will ever happen again.

Seriously, is all this hand-wringing really productive?
So we didn’t get the bill we wanted. Big deal. This happens in a large, diverse republic (read Federalist #10 if you don’t believe me.) It’s a reality of life that sometimes, when you go on the offensive, you get pushed back. Change comes slowly, painfully slowly.
So all this wringing of hands and the gnashing of teeth needs to stop. The pity party is over.  
I am not all that interested in "calling people to account" over this one issue (and not even the issue but one bill regarding the issue.) I am more interested in figuring out what our options are from here and I really wish that the legislators who saw fit to post an apology or an explanation on here would have gone into more detail explaining what they intend to do now.
I understand Congress’ ability to manage foreign policy is limited and the purse-strings are the most direct tool they have. But there are others. The most obvious is a deauthorization of the war. It is probably less politically tenable than defunding, at least until September when the Republicans pledge they’ll finally accept reality. Why they insist on waiting I don’t know and I don’t intend to bet the farm that the majority of them will stick to their word; but I think we should be able to peel a few off on the margins.

What I am really focused on, though, is the the  War Powers Act. I wasn’t all that politically interested during the Mogadishu incident and did not pay much attention. But I do know the Republicans forced President Clinton to withdraw. I’ll admit my research here is only preliminary and I’m a little too busy to find out the exact legislative process they used. I believe it was something along the lines of the President only being able to keep the troops deployed for 30 days (or was it 60?) unless an extension is authorized by Congress. I doubt the hawks will be happy about mandating a complete withdrawal, but if we want benchmarks and accountability forcing the President to keep reporting in month after month if he wants to keep his precious war going seems like the way to go.

Of course, the War Powers Act has never faced a constitutional test before. So the President might choose to take it to court. We’ll see I suppose.

•  If they cave on something this many

  Americans oppose, they'll cave on everything else and nothing good will get done.

  And I think the American people are getting pretty itchy for some change at the top.  I admit that I, myself, would love to see the end of Mr. 30%.

  by Sick Of It on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:55:21 AM PDT

•  Let me make it simple

  We will leave Iraq when the Iraqis throw us out, and not one day before. The two-party system in America is an elaborate fraud that masks rule by the rich. The longer we toil for an exploitative system, the more we are exploited.

  by ANKOSS on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:55:34 AM PDT

  •  I find it humorous that Bush continues to say

    "we'll leave when the Iraqis want us out" after the Iraqis have bluntly said over and over again they want the Americans to leave.

    It's just another BS story to pacify the public.

    by Sick Of It on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:57:52 AM PDT

  •  At least you didn't say

    "Zionist bankers" or Illuminati.

    I give you credit for that much.

    by Superribbie on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:01:06 AM PDT

    •  It's pay for play

      America is an equal opportunity plutocracy that observes the golden rule. Whoever has the gold, rules.

      by ANKOSS on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:09:37 AM PDT

    •  yeah it's

      yeah its not like

      The richest 1% of adults owned 40% of the world’s total assets in the year 2000. The richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of total assets. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth. (Source: World Institute for Development Economics Research, The World Distribution of Household Wealth, 2006).

      Oh wait.... that is what it is like.

      http://www.endgame.org/...

      by pissedpatriot on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:10:05 AM PDT

      •  Status Quo

        Was there ever a time when that wasn't the case?
        Rich people have more stuff than poor people.

        SHOCKER!

        by Pav on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:15:54 AM PDT

        •  The disparity between rich and poor

          has grown mightily, in this country and in the world as a whole. It's a very real problem, and one that has been worsening since at least the 1970's. Our political system is partly to blame in that, IMO, though personally I put more blame on the belief in unfettered capitalism and "free" trade, which transcends just politics and has, indeed, largely infected both of our viable parties.

          I don't go so far as to call our whole system a "fraud", though. I think it's got some mightily big flaws that need to be corrected.

          by Spit on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:20:15 AM PDT

          •  I can see that

            But understanding that there is a problem with rising inequality is very different from saying that there is some shadowly cabal of ungodly rich people who control everything.
            Personally inequality in terms of net worth doesn't bother me much. It's only an issue when the benefits of economic expansions aren't properly distributed.
            But at the end of the day the divine law of karma has its way. If they don't work to improve the lot of the poor then either you end up with deflated demand kicking off a recession or you end up with civil unrest on your hands.

            by Pav on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:28:00 AM PDT

            •  For the most part

              I don't think it's some kind of worldwide plot among some super secret club of the wealthy, I agree on that. But I don't think it's going to rebalance itself -- at least without really major and painful problems, and then all hell could break loose -- until we solve some fundamental problems with representation and the political system, and the way the government sees its economic role. And that's a tough thing, when our parties are beholden to corporate power to such a degree, and when the dialogue in the country centers around free markets and concern for the health of business above the health of workers.

              But I'm a big godless commie as far as a lot of these things go, and at some point it becomes sort of peripheral to this diary.  

              by Spit on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:39:29 AM PDT

            •  Manipulation technology keeps advancing

              In Bourbon France, a nobleman could run over a poor child and not turn back. Today, a good deal of negotiating is in order, but the rich, if properly represented, can get away with murder. Aggravating inequality is much easier, since more and more people are completely mesmerized by what they see on television. They reject "class warfare," and they are told that they are going to be part of an "ownership society." What they don't hear is that their role in this society is to be owned.

              I don't argue against the persistence of inequality. What I point out is current surreal masking of growing inequality by a media propaganda apparatus that would be the envy of Dr. Goebbels. While distracted by a "war on terror," we are having our social capital drained away to maximize profits and further concentrate wealth. All the while, we are being told that the economy is doing well. It is not doing well for ordinary people, and it will get worse.

              by ANKOSS on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:24:27 PM PDT

    •  Aliens, dude, aliens . . .

      ;)

      by TastyCurry on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:15:21 AM PDT

•  Shoulder to the wheel

  Anyone who thought these Dems were going to save us, wasn't paying attention.  

  We have a LOT of work to do in this culture - we are a large nation, with the largest inmate population in the world, the poorest workers in the OECD, an enormous military-industrial-prison complex, and a growing taste for cruelty.  The elites who run the show - corporate, religious, media - would be more comfortable with the Constitution of the Confederate States of America than with the US Constitution, which they ignore.  (Bush called it a goddam piece of paper in 2005.)

  So, take the long view.  Don't let them turn us around.  We have to keep on keeping on.  

  by Cambridgemac on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:04:07 AM PDT

  •  Read the Chalmers Johnsen article

    http://www.atimes.com/...

    ...But IMHO the American public is not up to the task...

    by trinityfly on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:14:28 AM PDT

    •  I have and I tend to agree

      And still we must keep on.

      by Cambridgemac on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:14:35 AM PDT

•  End the careers of those Dems who voted "yes"

  ...through primaries, whre possible.

  Other than that I'm open and mulling options.

  by dov12348 on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:06:15 AM PDT

•  Hand wringing?

  Hand wringing, you say?

  Fuck that.

  This is not "hand wringing" but fully justified righteous indignation and anger.

  And the Democratic Party did not "go on the offensive" and "get pushed back."  

  They capitulated.

  The leadership is dividing the party and alienating both the base and potential Dem voting independents.

  This was a monumental fuck up, however you wish to define it.

  by Karmafish on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:06:59 AM PDT

  •  Pelosi was just exposed.

    She has no control over her party, taking orders from the likes of Clintonista greasemonkeys Emanuel and Hoyer. She's another in a long line of empty Dem suits.  

    by wozzle on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:17:40 AM PDT

    •  Yup. I sent her a little note letting

      her know that I am just a tad, umm, displeased.

      Apparently it doesn't matter, tho.  

      The leadership isn't looking for the support of the base.  What they want are pats on the head from Republicans.

      Reid wants George Bush to scratch him behind the ear.

      Revolting.

      by Karmafish on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:23:34 AM PDT

  •  blah fucking blah

    oh you so righteous!  you know so much!  you so smart.

    by pacified on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:11:42 AM PDT

    •  You may be pacified,

      but I most definitely am not.

      by Karmafish on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:27:17 AM PDT

•  Well

  people are just pissed right now, and rightly so. Some of that anger can be productive, though I agree with you that some of it is not.

  I think that people read the whole war into this bill, as though our congresscritters were voting: War? Yea or Nay? Realistically, we were highly unlikely to "end the war" this way, and while I think their "compromise" move was a mistake and a nasty one, I also don't think it made some fundamental difference between bringing our troops home tomorrow and leaving them there indefinitely.

  War powers act in itself won't work because we authorized the war, BTW. It was meant to keep presidents from committing troops without congressional approval, and I don't see a way it can provide us with a means to end a war once its been approved by congress.

  by Spit on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:07:24 AM PDT

  •  Even if it was defunded

    Bush would have left them there.
    The DoD would have just had to scale back on some other projects. Either that or float some agency bonds.

    All it did was offer a stick (a small stick at that) by which Congress could establish benchmarks. Note, benchmarks for progress are not the same thing as withdrawl.

    by Pav on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:19:41 AM PDT

    •  I agree

      there's a difference between legislation that defunds past some date (providing funds only for withdrawal), like Feingold-Reid, and a lack of legislation to fund, which is what I think many people here were hoping for. The former would have to be followed by the executive. The latter leaves the executive able to plug the funding holes for a few months until the official budget comes into debate.

      We were never IMO going to bring the troops home that way. Now, I still wish they'd stood stronger and forced better oversight, but in itself it wasn't going to end the war.

      by Spit on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:24:04 AM PDT

•  Yeah, take it to court...

  

  by wonkydonkey on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:08:44 AM PDT

•  You should go to the next funeral

  ...for one of our soldiers killed in Iraq and tell his/her mother to "Stop crying, you win some you lose some".

  by born socialist on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:18:48 AM PDT

  •  As if nobody dies

    Because raw emotion is totally a reasonable basis for sound policy-making.

    How is your argument any different from Bush's "Go ask anyone who lost a loved one on 9-11" bullhonkey to justify getting us into this ridiculous war in the first place?

    Fallacious logic is fallacious logic.

    by Pav on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:22:44 AM PDT

•  Hand wringing?

  More like neck wringing.  I will proudly vote to re-elect my Rep., John Conyers, in 2008.  Senator Levin? No effin' way.  I'll support a primary challenge, and/or the Green candidate.

  Bleed the Vichy Dems on their left.  Think long-term - we may lose a few seats (officially) to the Publicans, but eventually we'll have the opportunity to fill them with real Democrats.

  by HarveyMilk on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:20:03 AM PDT

•  Hmm - let's see

  "THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave."

  http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

  ""We demand the withdrawal of the occupation forces, or the creation of a timetable for such a withdrawal," he said. "I call upon the Iraqi government not to extend the occupation even for a single day.""

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  Oh, goody, we get to bring the troops home.  Yeah, right.  Pfft.

  by Sick Of It on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:20:03 AM PDT

  •  I am sorry but this is BS.

    The Cleric is not the government.  He is simply one man.  

    I agree that Bush wants to keep our forces there and that this sucks, but do not pretend that the actual, elected government of Iraq has asked us to leave.  All I hear from them is "Good god, DO NOT LEAVE" over and over as they know they will be the first against the wall when the shooting starts in earnest.  But hey, the Iraqis voted for them, so we have to accept their choice.

    Listening to Sadr is like listening to Jerry Falwell or David Duke.  Hardly representative.

    by TastyCurry on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:21:58 AM PDT

    •  I agree that Sadr is repulsive

      But he was originally part of the government of Iraq:

      http://story.iraqsun.com/...

      The rise of extremists was to be expected in the power vaccuum after Saddam Hussein.  It was shortsighted of Bush to not anticipate this (or he just didn't care).

      But you gotta admit that Sadaam Hussein didn't invite us in - that's just bull.

      As far as the Iraqi government telling us to get out when they're basically under Bush's thumb - well, that's not going to happen.  Whenever they attempt to speak out, they get silenced pretty quick.

      "'I cannot answer on behalf of the US administration but I can tell you that, from our side, our forces will be ready by June 2007,' Mr al-Maliki told reporters after meeting George Bush in Jordan.

      His comments appeared to go further than the US president wanted when the pair held a joint press conference in the capital, Amman.

      Mr Bush simply vowed that US troops would stay in Iraq 'until the job is complete'."

      http://www.metro.co.uk/...

      "On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition."

      http://www.alternet.org/...

      "The Program on International Policy Attitudes released a new poll on Iraqi public opinion today which finds that seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year."

      http://thinkprogress.org/...
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      "London - Iraq's need for US troops could fall in three to six months if the United States equipped Iraqi security forces with sufficient weapons, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said in comments published on Thursday."

      http://www.iol.co.za/...

      Here are more examples:

      http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/...

      And here's an example of the real problem:

      http://rawstory.com/...

      They made a huge, horrible mess in Iraq, and they're scared spitless about what will happen if they leave.  So no asking by the Iraq government will make a lick of difference to what Bush and his pals will do.

      by Sick Of It on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:01:29 PM PDT

      •  RIght.

        I agree.  I just feel a lot of folks are looking at this from only one POV, ours.

        I am a “You break it, you buy it” kind of guy.  I feel morally responsible for breaking Iraq but see no method to fix it.  I think leaving against the will of the folks there is a horribly shirking of our newfound responsibility.  I may not like that we broke it, but it still means we have to buy it.

        The only viable option, in my mind, is actually listening to their elected government and respecting their wishes.  I know Bush is really not doing this, but if he was, and they felt they could be candid, that would be great.

        We can always hope!

        by TastyCurry on Fri May 25, 2007 at 06:31:48 PM PDT

  •  And before you say “polls.”

    We have to listen to the elected leaders, not polls.  That is how diplomacy and democracy works.  We cannot say to the elected leaders, "but we polled your people, and they take a different position."  That is the elected leaders’ problem.

    by TastyCurry on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:24:11 AM PDT

•  Cute n/t

  by joanneleon on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:21:44 AM PDT

•  You've hit the nail on the head

  The War Powers Act looms large, large indeed.

  If you read the Iraq War resolution from 2002 (I recommend everybody do this kind of thing!) you will see it is a piece of utter legislative swill.

  Technically, Congress was not voting for war.  They were delegating their power to initiate war to the President to use according to his judgement.   Personally, I think this broad grant of discretion was unconstitutional, but I doubt that position would carry the day in the Supreme Court. This, even though legislative delegation and delegation of budgetary authority via the line item veto are well established to be unconstitutional.

  However -- I don't see logically how the authorization can be extended to the present situation, in which the regime then in power has been deposed, its leaders executed, a new Constitution adopted, and a new government democratically elected. In fact, the administration's position is that the new government is not bound by the agreements of the old government -- when we're talking about oil contracts.  In effect they've cancelled out the old obligations of the country as if we are talking about a completely new country.

  Which raises the question: does authorization to wage war against the deposed Iraqi regime amount to authorization to wage war against other parties in the same geographic region?

  If not, then The War Powers Act applies (read it!), and according to 5(b) the President must terminate hostilities within 60 days or seek Congressional approval.

  There is a strategy in chess called a "fork": you move a piece to a position on the board where it threatens two of your opponent's pieces.  The opponent is then faced with a choice of which piece to sacrifice.  

  I see two forks here.  Either the Iraq is the same country as before, and thus the contracts with Russia for oil projects stand; or it is a different country in which case the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 is no longer in force.  If the War Powers Act is unconstitutional because of separation of powers, then the Iraq War Resolution violates that same principle.

  by grumpynerd on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:11:43 AM PDT

•  WPA

  Could not be more unconstitutional.

  I would love to see it challenged and tossed.  Talk about legislative hubris and violation of separation of powers.

  Funding really is the only way to go which would survive any sort of legal-historical constitutional challenge.

  Note that the appropriation step had already been taken by Congress before the WPA bill in the Somali instance.  Funding had already been cut and the WPA was just for show.

  by TastyCurry on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:14:20 AM PDT

  •  Its Constitutionality is Questionable

    I agree on that.
    But it is no more questionable than the idea of a permanent standing army. And being as how the standing army and penchant for military adventurism is the reason we have the WPA in the first place it really needs to stay.
    There has to be a way for Congress to make sure the President can't deploy as many troops into combat as often as he wants with or without a declaration of war. We've already gone over how inadequate (and politically problematic) the purse-strings angle can be.

    by Pav on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:02:14 PM PDT

    •  I think that it is designed that way.

      If one accepts the proposition, as put forth by John Reid among others, that our founding generation was essentially operating under the same conceptions of governance as the Roundheads in the English Civil War, one has to view our Constitution as an extension of those concepts.  One of the key concepts was the absolute power of the Parliament over funding but the fairly absolute power of the Executive, here the King, over Foreign Policy.

      As much as everyone likes to rag on that hack Yoo, the one thing he seems to get right is the concept of FP as a fairly exclusive Executive domain subject to the Legislature only so far as the Legislature can cause various types of pain for the Executive, in the 1600 and 1700 timeframe of Ango-American Constitutionalism.

      I think the conduct of the Quasi War with France and the whole Barbary Pirates incident bear out the founders acceptance of this Constitutional interpretation.

      The purse-string angle was designed to be politically problematic because the design preferred conflicts over FP to be resolved in favor of the Executive unless a vast majority, i.e. a veto proof majority, disagreed.

      Of course, these Constitutional concepts were developed in a world where most soldiers and sailors came from a non-voting class, at least early on.  The political problems with purse-strings have increased exponentially as we developed an enfranchised citizen based armed forces, perhaps pushing the "preference" for Executive dominance too far.

      No real solution offered.  Simply glad someone else is interested in this besides me.

      by TastyCurry on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:45:07 PM PDT