Iraq: The Power of the Purse


Senator Chris Dodd: I happen to believe very strongly that this policy of ours, military involvement in Iraq, is counterproductive. We're less safe, less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated today as a result of the policy. So I believe that we ought to begin that process of redeployment here.

. . . Congress has an obligation here. It's not enough that we just draft timetables. The Constitution gives the Congress of the United States a unique power, and that is the power of the purse. As long as we continue drafting these lengthy resolutions and amendments here, talking about timelines and dates, we're not getting to the fundamental power that exists in the Congress.

And that is to terminate the funding of this effort here, give us a new direction. As everyone who's looked at this issue over the last two or three years have concluded, there is no military solution here, and we need to do far more to protect our interests not only in that region, but throughout the world. We're not doing it with this policy.

< Racial Profiling in Irving? | Jena Six: Mychal Bell Released on Bond >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am with you but (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:38:00 PM EST
    the Democrats won't do it becasue as I said before they don't want to own the war.  They feel if they cut the funds then it becomes their war.  They want to keep it as Bush's war so they can be super victorious in 08.  In fact I honestly believe they want the war to continue all the way up to the election so they can have an easy win.  

    They are paying for it. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:59:36 PM EST
    They bought it.

    They own it.

    A Sickeningly Immoral Charade


    Terminate the funding? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:21:25 PM EST
    Terminate the funding? What a novel idea!!

    You'd think Nancy Pelosi and/or Harry Reid and/or Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton would have thought of this.

    It's perfect. It'll cut the feet off Bush.

    And it might even make them worth voting for, and save the elections for them next year...


    Obama got huge applause for taking this position (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:34:49 PM EST
    tonight at his NYC rally.

    Do you have a quote? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:37:38 PM EST
    I didn't have pen and paper, but here's my best (none / 0) (#11)
    by Geekesque on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:57:16 AM EST
    recollection about the points he made:

    We can't afford to wait until the next president takes over 18 months from now to start withdrawing our troops.

    Obama will not vote for any funding--which he characterized as 'giving George Bush money'--which does not have a timetable for withdrawal, and will urge other Democrats to do so, and everyone in the crowd should urge their Senators and Representatives to take the same position.


    So you don't have any quotes? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:34:05 PM EST
    Here are quotes that took less than one minute to find.

    TPMElection Central
    Greg Sargent - September 17, 2007

    "We are going to bring an end to this war and I will fight hard in the United States Senate to make sure we don't pass any funding bill that does not have a deadline,"

    "No timetable, no funding. It is time to bring this to an end."

    Does "make sure we don't pass any funding bill that does not have a deadline" mean that he will vote for funding that includes meaningless timetables that Bush will veto or ignore if he signs?


    I'm looking for both him and Hillary (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    and all of them to make definitive, unequivocal, unconditional statements.

    NO MORE funding for the occupation. Period.

    Statements that not definitive, not unequivocal, and not unconditional are not definitive, not unequivocal, and are conditional.



    At Least (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:10:08 PM EST
    Video? (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:22:36 AM EST
    I'd love to see him take a position like that.

    Here's a diary with the video (none / 0) (#12)
    by Geekesque on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:58:37 AM EST

    Not sure which part that comment is in--not the beginning or the end, so probably either 2, 3, or 4.  My guess is 3.


    Any body got a better plan? (none / 0) (#6)
    by AshleyA on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    I'm not really sure if I agree or disagree. If we do cut off troops,how will they get the necessary equipment to protect  themselves. If you cut off the troops funding terrorists will take the opportunity to plant more bombs and plan more attacks against our soldiers. It will result in absolute chaos and an increase of unnecessary soldier's deaths. But if we don't take any kind of action soldiers will die too. Doesn't anybody else have a better plan?

    Defunding the occupation of Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:19:58 AM EST
    is not defunding the troops.

    When the Democrats or anyone else claim that the money is for the troops, they, just like George Bush, are quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

    The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops".

    Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies

    And no, no one has a better idea. The only better idea would have been not invading Iraq in the first place.

    Power Is The Control Of Money (none / 0) (#9)
    by john horse on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:04:52 AM EST
    Power is the control of money.  The Democrats have the power.  All they need is the backbone to use it.

    Unfortunately, they won't do the hard lifting (none / 0) (#13)
    by po on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:26:25 AM EST
    Here is the problem in a nutshell:

    In response to Gravel's suggestion that the Democratic Senators do the following:

    "Well, the first thing, you stop the debate by voting every single day on cloture. Every day. Twenty days, and you'll overcome cloture.

    The president vetoes the law. It comes back to the Congress. And in the House at noon every single day you vote to override the president's veto. And in 40 days, the American people will have weighed in, put the pressure on those.

    You tell me that the votes aren't there -- you go get them by the scruff of the neck, that's what you do. You make them vote."

    Mr. Dodd said:

    "I think it's a little unrealistic to assume every single day you do that, Mike. But certainly you can do this when the opportunity arises."

    The opportunity arises every minute of every day.  Just like the opportunity for some American soldier to get killed or wounded in Iraq while the politicians figure out when it might be convenient to talk.