Vilsack: Cut Off Iraq War Funding

Tom Vilsack, current Presidential candidate and former Iowa Governor AND DLC Chairman has called for an immediate cutoff of Iraq war funding:

Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral duty to cut off funding for the status quo," said Vilsack. "Not a cap — an end. Not eventually — immediately."

Kudos to Tom Vilsack. He has earned my respect and my attention.

< Ryan O'Neal Says Son Attacked With Fire Poker | Libby's Grand Jury Testimony >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    About time (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    Glad he did it before a republican echoed this very, very popular idea.

    Message to Hillary, Edwards, et al: Take your fingers out of the wind cause it isn't working.

    Take the lead from Vilask if you want to stay elected.

    Slightly confused here (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 03:40:01 PM EST
    The ABC News Article reports Vilsack "calling on Congress to use the power of the purse to completely end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war."

    But the Sioux City Journal has an article today saying:

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack called Tuesday for Congress to block funding for additional troops in Iraq.

    But he said he's leery of using purse strings to shrink the U.S. presence in Iraq. His comments came before President Bush was expected to announce plans to send 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq.

    Which of them is reporting accurately?

    That was then (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 03:42:14 PM EST
     this is now.

    January 10 (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 03:43:02 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    My mistake - I didn't see the date at the bottom of the article.

    Cutting off War funding (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peaches on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 04:42:08 PM EST
    should be quite obvious. However, it seems to me the American people are once again being manipulated by a MSM into believing that congress is powerless. The argument being put forth is that Democrats risk losing support if they cut off funding just as they did when they did it in Viet Nam. It is mentioned so casually, I heard it on NPR this morning, that we are supposed to accept this as fact. That, even if Democrats really have the best interests of the troops in mind, the American people will percieve the democrats as weak, once again and in opposition to the troops what a bunch of crap.

    Second, We are also supposed to believe that cutting funding is the only option. However, according to legal scholar, David Galove, Congress has many more vast powers to end this war. However, we have been lead to believe that the constitution gives the President exclusive powers as commander-in-chief with the congress being granted only oversight over the purse strings. This is not true, according to Galove.

    the Constitution gives vast war powers to Congress. It's very, very explicit in the article of the Constitution which gives Congress powers. Congress has the power to raise money, borrow money to provide for the common defense. It has the power to raise and support armies. It has the power -- these are all explicit powers -- the explicit power to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces. It has the power to define offenses against the law of nations, which includes the laws of war. It has, most famously of all, of course, the power to declare war, as well as the power to issue letters of mark and reprisal, which is a kind of archaic practice now, but dealt with privateers during the 18th and the 19th century, which was a very important form of limited warfare. It has the power to make rules for captures on land and sea. All of these powers and others are very explicitly granted to Congress, and it should be very clear that the Commander-in-Chief power is not the only clause in the Constitution which deals with war powers. I'm going to add one other thing, which is that the administration is very myopic even about executive powers, because although the President is made Commander-in-Chief, he's also, very explicitly in the Constitution, enjoined faithfully to execute the laws, and that does not mean disregarding the laws that Congress chooses to pass. So I think it's important to bring a fuller view of what the Constitution itself says, let alone the history of its interpretation, to the public and to public officials in Congress...Congress has plenary authority, virtually, to pass laws that restrict the scope of war and conflict in which the President engages. So it's not a question of constitutional power at all. And when some senators or congressmen suggest that the reason they might not be able to adopt measures which block or limit the President's ability to escalate the war in Iraq, and they try to place that on constitutional grounds, I think they're without any foundation for their constitutional argument.

    Jeesus, lets go. get them out of there. Now!

    I'm a skeptic (none / 0) (#7)
    by fafnir on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 05:47:37 PM EST
    Would he be so bold if he were leading the pack instead of bring up the rear? I don't think he would. This is easy bait for the activists who vote in the Primaries. Tom "DLC" Vilsack would ditch those statements faster than Newt ditches wives if he became the nominee.

    I thought you guys cared about the troops? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:15:30 AM EST
    You can't just cut off funding.   You can bring an end to the war and bring the troops home by all means but cutting off funding is a horrible idea and Pelosi knows it.

    Let's just say they cut it off.  Even our biased media will not that an abrudt end to the war without finishing the job will lead to even more civilians deaths and who knows what else.  

    We all know or should know what happened in Vietnam after we ran out of there.  Millions died in the killing feilds etc... and there was no 24hr news to cover that.

    The democrats frankly would rather complain about the war then end it and politically that's a better move then cutting off funding and having to take responsibility for what happens next.

    I would suspect that it will never happen.

    Cut off funding (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 04:33:13 PM EST
    Contrary to the winger spin, cutting off funding doesn't not harm the troops. It supports the troops because they get to come home.

    Nice fantasy though.