If [Bush] ignores [the House proposal], we sue and the courts enforce it. if he ignores that, we're in massive constitutional crisis.
See? The plan is to sue Bush in October 2008, one month before an election and expect the Supreme Court to do what it never has done - involve itself in matters of war. This is a dishonest joke.
IF the House Dems wanted to end the Iraq Debacle, they would NOT fund it. But they do not want to end it. They want to RUN ON IT in 2008. Oh by the way, if you think Dems will not vote more funding for the War in October 2008, a month before the election, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
You want to support that? That's your perogative. But please do not for a moment insinuate that you are representing the PROGRESSIVE position. You want the Progressive position? How about what the Nation says:
Democrats gained control of Congress in November with the charge to bring the occupation to a swift conclusion. Yet, as we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the story of the 110th Congress still seems to be one of an opposition party struggling to come to grips with its authority to upend a President's misguided policies.
. . . Forcing Americans and Iraqis to die for Bush's delusions for another year while emptying the Treasury at a rate of more than $1 billion a week is unconscionable. That is why House members who have battled hardest to end the war are so frustrated with Pelosi's approach. "This plan would require us to believe whatever the President would tell us about progress that was being made," says Representative Maxine Waters, speaking for the bipartisan Out of Iraq Caucus. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey has been blunter, saying of the legislation, "There's no enforcement mechanism."
Waters and Woolsey are right. While we respect efforts by antiwar Democrats like Jim McDermott and Jerrold Nadler to negotiate with Pelosi in hopes of improving the legislation, conservative Blue Dog Democrats have already signaled that the price of their support will be the removal of any teeth put into the plan by progressives. Worse, they have tampered with the legislation in ways that may even encourage Bush's interventionist tendencies: The Democratic proposal for a timeline originally included a provision that would have required Bush to seek Congressional approval before using military force against Iran. But under pressure from conservative members of her caucus and lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Pelosi removed the language. By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval for a wider war.
The haggling over compromises points up the flaw in Pelosi's approach: It is too soft, too slow, too open to lobbying mischief and abuse by a President who has done nothing but abuse Congress for six years. America and the world are not crying out for a timeline that might begin extracting troops from Iraq a year from now. Almost 200 American soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis, have died since the Democrats took control of Congress. To accept that the war will go on for another year, at the least, is to accept that the death toll will continue to mount.
Democrats should recognize that the time has come to use the full power accorded Congress in time of war: the power of the purse. As Senator Russ Feingold says, "Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our servicemen and -women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger."
That, my friends, is the PROGRESSIVE position. Supporting this cynical political cravenness from the House Dems is the DC Beltway Establishment position.
Perhaps that is the right position. I strongly think it is not, both politically and policywise. But it is time for those who support this proposal to STOP pretending they are representing the Progressive position as they clearly are not.
