What Seem to Be the Problem Taking Congress SO Long to Shut Down Bush's War?

[Tellurian]

I've posed this question in another thread.

It was suggested another thread be started referencing this question.

WHY IS CONGRESS FINDING SUCH A HIGH DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY IN SHUTTING THE IRAQ WAR DOWN?

What will it take for Congress to force Bush to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME?

I don't understand the Why's and Wherefores-

[Tellurian]

1. All Bush's signing statements giving himself extraordinary Executive Powers

Has Bush's Power eclipsed that of Congress' Power?

Are we Stuck in Iraq until the next President is elected...Hopefully a Democrat?

[meldroc]

51. Bush's signing statements do not have the force of law.

If Congress felt like getting off their candy-asses, they could put Bush in his place and put his signing statements in the trash heap of history.

But it seems that they're more interested in sounding like they oppose Bush rather than performing anything meaningful.

I don't want a non-binding resolution. That won't accomplish anything except for allowing senators and representatives to say "See, we opposed the war" while Bush gets another million people killed. We need to go straight to defunding the war and impeaching Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, etc. Technically, since impeachment is a political process instead of a judicial process, it doesn't have to take years. It can take a single day if enough politicians had the stones to just fucking do it.

I voted Democrat because I was under the mistaken impression that they'd actually do something instead of allowing themselves to be pussy-whipped.

I fucking hate politics. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Something that big and complicated can't be done in a wink.

You have to have a majority of votes and in the senate, Mcconnell is threatening a filibuster.
Bush was given powers and congress has limited options.
There are many things like the country of Iraq, the government, the logistics, ect.

[Tellurian]

3. Well, this is why I'm asking..

What has to be done to HELP our People in Congress to get this War Shut down?

How many votes are we short?

What Democrats are not supporting Shutting the War down?

If we get a majority vote, can Bush over ride it with his Veto Pen?

[noamnety]

31. Okay. Tactics.

So let’s review the intelligence bidding. We won the counter-propaganda campaign. We facilitated a split (weakness) within the enemy’s redoubt in the 2006 elections. Those are pretty big changes. This means that our situation has fundamentally changed. When the situation changes, then we have to rely on something called tactical agility to adapt to the changes faster than the enemy can. We have to change our tactics and our tactical goals to fit into a new campaign that fits the new situation. We do not keep doing the same things."

(snip)

"Now, let’s talk briefly about resources. Let’s talk about time and space. I live five hours from Washington DC. If I go to DC, it takes X amount of gas, or X amount of money, to get there. I will spend ten hours on the road. If there are pressing matters at home, then I may not be able to go there. This situation has a certian universality about it. It doesn’t only apply to me. If I try to plan to get others from around here to DC, then I will face a host of circumstances that limit the number of people who go to DC. This also requires committees of people to do the planning and coordination. The more space and time that has to be approriated to accomplish one tactic, the more work there is to do on “management.” This is not military science. This is physics applied to sociology. Management requires greater and greate degrees of centralization. This dynamic, in turn, diverts a higher and higher ratio of resources into and expanding management infrastructure, that is taken away from somewhere.

Let’s talk about accountability (or I prefer to call it vulnerability). I have a Congressperson whose office is a 25 minute drive from here. I live on the outer edge of this district, so most of his constituents live closer. My Congressman is more vulnerable to me than anyone in the Executive Branch of the United States Government."

(snip)

We don’t need nationwide any longer. We don’t need statewide any longer. We need 435 small units that support our supporters, afflict our enemies, and lay siege to the recalcitrants.

http://www.insurgentamerican.net/2007/02/01/on-strategy-tactics-intelligence/#more-138

Here's the short version. A 500,000 people marching in Washington does not hold any one elected official accountable. Doesn't make them sweat. 500,000 people divided among 100 senators - that's enough for 5,000 people to demonstrate/sit in at each senator's office, and still leave time and resources for demonstrations at the respresentatives' offices as well - with less effort than a national protest. I promise you, 5,000 angry people with signs showing up at their office will make them sweat.

The Occupation Project begins tomorrow, Feb 5. http://www.vcnv.org/project/the-occupation-project

[Tellurian]

36. All RIGHT! Thanks for posting this..

It's things like this that need posting and promoting at DU rather than
the incessant Flame Wars we are subjected to discussing Demo candidates!

[Tellurian]

43. I meant to ask-

If these sit-ins are beginning today. How long will they go on?

[noamnety]

47. 8 weeks.

or less, if the official agrees to stop funding the war.

Possible actions:

"One action within an official’s office is to read the names of U.S. and Iraq dead, tolling a bell for each name read, until all names have been read or until the Senator / Representative publicly pledges to vote against any additional war funding or participants are placed under arrest and removed from the office.

Another action within an official’s office is to toll a bell once each minute for each Iraqi and U.S. person who has died since the U.S. led invasion. The number of Iraqis who have died as a consequence of the war will quite probably never be known. However, it is established that the number of Iraqis who have died since the invasion number at least in the tens of thousands, if not in the hundreds of thousands. The tolling of the bell would continue until it is tolled once for each person who has died in Iraq or until people are placed under arrest and removed from the office.

Other possibilities include an interfaith prayer service; a silent vigil; posting of the names of Iraqi and U.S. dead; bringing in photos of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq; etc.—all occurring within the Representative’s or Senator’s office and continuing until such time as he / she publicly pledges to vote against additional war funding or the participants are removed from the office by law enforcement."
http://www.vcnv.org/the-occupation-project-a-campaign-of-sustained-nonviolent-civil-disobedience-to-end-the-iraq-war

"My own decision-allergic Congressman, who I will out here in a national venue, David Price, is now blathering about "exit strategy" (a think tank term if ever there was one) to avoid the issue of defunding the war. But he is on the defensive, as he was when 400 of us encamped in front of his office - with others inside, refusing to leave - to (successfully) pressure him to vote against the 2002 authorization for war (which he now proudly slaps on his website's front page. (Of course, he has voted every time since then to re-fund the war... Price is deep-down DLC).

My point? We did turn him on a vote, and it was civil disobedience - a 26-hour sit-in at his Chapel Hill office in October 2002 - that did the trick."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/occupations-to-stop-the-o_b_39882.html

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Two of the Dems I worked for on campaigns have flip flopped

and now refuse to stop funding the war. That could explain part of your question.

They debate funding this week. So it's time to contact your congress critters.

[Tellurian]

23. sorry for missing your post..

Who are the Dems flip flopping?

I hope it's not one of mine!

arrrrh!

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Claire McCaskill and Nancy Boyda

[Tellurian]

37. McCaskill in Missouri, and Boyda in Kansas

Both Democrats?....

shame, shame, shame!

what can we do to help besides e-mails?

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. phone calls

I am just furious with both of these ladies.

[Tellurian]

48. Done! ...nm

[ProSense]

5. Be Heard:

Set A Deadline

1. What do you think is the most effective means for the Democratic Congress to end American military involvement in Iraq?

Please rank in priority.
Set a deadline that forces President Bush to end the war
Deny Iraq war funding requests by President Bush
Prevent further escalation of U.S. troop numbers in Iraq

[Tellurian]

12. Well for one pick..

The Troop escalation seems to be fading fast. Although I realize Bush has Troops already en route to Iraq.
The Cutting off Funding.. is a double edge sword because it is unclear the effect it will have on our troops in Iraq.
So that avenue needs exploration and clarification.

I know the VN War was ended when the Funding was cut off.. So, why won't it work here?

The deadline is in Bush's control... A Fools Game if we want to play on his time line!

[ProSense]

25. Please read

this and this.

[TayTay]

45. It took a long time to get the funding pulled for VN

A very long time. That war went on for 15 years all together. The Congress didn't really start to get serious and start to threaten the funding until about 10 years or so into the war.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116976510264154205

As an aside and off-topic, this site is a little sad. Its just sad that the name change was necessary.

http://www.veteransforamerica.org/?page=wiki&wikiid=3

[emulatorloo]

50. TayTay -- thnx so much for posting those links EOM

[PresidentObama]

6. Unfortunately it's going to be a tough road ahead...

Shutting this war down because even though we have the majority, Bush is determined to get things his way.

Congress needs to continue to throw every roadblock in the way of Bush, and try and raise the biggest stink possible. We have the majority, and I hope the Democrats put action to there voices and show Americans what they voted for in November!!

[Tellurian]

8. Oh, I agree 100% on that..

So,you're saying, even if Congress gets a majority vote. That is quite possibly NOT going to be the fix we need to end this War because he will Veto the majority vote?

[PresidentObama]

13. To be honest with you: I'm not 100% sure.

It's clear Congress needs to place pressure on Bush that this isn't what the American people voted for in November, and the troop surge isn't going to cut it. We need to stop the troop surge first off.

Ending the war will be tough, but we have to apply the pressure.

[Tellurian]

16. Here is how adamant I am about stopping the War..

If it takes a Constitutional Crisis to STOP this War and bring the Troops Home.
I'm all for it! What are your feelings about being that TUFF with all the anti-war people behind Congress?

Do you think Congress is that serious about taking the reins of power back to the People's representatives?

[Miss Chybil]

18. What exactly happens during a Constitutional Crisis?

I keep hearing people say, "We're in a Constitutional crisis," or asking, "Are we in a Constitutional crisis, now?" or, "Will that cause a Constitutional crisis?" and I really don't know what it is, or what it does.

[Tellurian]

22. For my way of interpreting..

We have to ignore all the additions and deletions to the Constitution made by Bush.
Why? Because we can- Why can we? Because it was done under fraudulent conditions..

Mainly, because he duped Congress into signing on to a unanimous vote giving him extraordinary powers. With Bush adding measures severely limiting our Constitutional Rights in the name of National Security. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom, decided the only way the Constitution as they created it, could be changed, would be by unanimous Congressional vote. Well, Bush got his unanimous vote alright, but it was done fraudulently, the Lying about the need to preemptively strike Iraq because we were in eminent danger of an attack on American soil.. It was a fraudulent LIE. My contention is...anything done under fraudulent conditions is not only criminal but is automatically void in the eyes of the Law.

What I'm saying is bring the fight to Bush...ignore all the power he has given himself and operate under the original Constitution. If Bush takes his case to court, then he either has to declare himself a Dictator OR relinquish control back to where it was before he made all the changes to the Constitution, diluting Congressional Power, and giving himself superior Executive Powers.. Constitutional Law is a morally based document. A concept is all that is necessary to make this work to our benefit..

sorry for taking so long... changing of the guard here!

[Miss Chybil]

26. Ok. I get the ignoring the self-appointed power part. That makes

perfect sense to me. But, what happens when that happens? Physically, I mean. Does everything shut down? Does Congress barricade itself in the Capitol and does Bush lock the gates around the White House? Does anything really happen, other than people conjecturing we're in a crisis, when Bush/Congress goes to court? What do the courts do when Alberto Gonzales says they don't have the authority to rule? I guess I'm looking for a "Day in the Life of a Constitutional Crisis" thing. What could happen?

[Tellurian]

35. I do understand what you're saying..

I think the best way is Congress having a strategy in place. I don't know if Congress can or can't issues a simple restraining order stopping Bush from going forward with the War. Thusly, forcing him to go to court to get the TRO lifted. Constitutional Scholars are on this as we type. There is a crisis in the making somewhere somehow.

The only example I can give you at the present time is during the Bush v Gore 2000 case. A Constitutional Crisis came about during the arguing of that case. It occurred when Gov Bush of Fla, insisted the electors cast Fla electoral votes to his brother. The electors who had been in place months before were not in agreement of casting all their electoral votes to Bush. Bear in mind now, all Gore needed were three electoral votes to meet the required number for the Win.

The Constitutional Crisis occurred when Gov Bush said he would replace the electors who were unwilling to cast their votes for his brother...his action of messing with the electoral votes would trigger a Constitutional Crisis and a subsequent filing from Gore's side filing an objection to Gov Bush's interference with the election process. The Bush v Gore case would have been halted until a decision on this crisis could be determined before the Bush v Gore case could again go forward.

So, the Bush camp was in danger of the court agreeing with the electors casting some or all of their votes for Gore...even if Gore didn't get all the electoral votes, he only needed 3 votes to win..if this crisis was allowed to be adjudicated by the Court, this most certainly would have changed the outcome of the 2000 election. After realizing Gov Bush's action could possibly give Gore a Win, they backed down with the previous strategy of forcing electors to do as their told and chose the Supreme Court as the safer route for success.

The Bushes chose the safe route by having their stacked Supreme Court make the decision based on the Constitutional Amendment..'everyone is allowed to vote during a presidential election'.. but adding a nuance, to that amendment.
NOT ALL the VOTES (are constitutionally mandated) NEED TO BE COUNTED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Technically the amendment doesn't state that but that is how they chose to interpret the meaning of it...and Won their case based on their interpretation of it.

What would be the best way to create the least disruptive Constitutional Crisis? I can only guess, saying, we (Congress, are a party of interest, by the People as their representation in the body of Congressional representatives..etc) enjoin the president from such and such.. making this a binding Order signed and sealed by both House...if Bush ignores or fights the order, how he approaches and perceives this challenge is unknown... the best scenario would be an orderly debate for resolution, unless of course Bush threatens Martial Law, which to date is his best Trump Card for complete control. When Martial Law is declared all elections are suspended indefinitely.. Not only is this a Trump card, but a two for one deal, that will continue to hang over our heads, like the sword of Damocles.

<sorry..lengthy and hurriedly written>

[Miss Chybil]

40. So a Constitutional crisis is basically where everything comes to a head

and the courts have to decide the outcome? I think I get it now. Thanks for the explanation. (And let's hope to God Bush doesn't come up with a reason to declare martial law...)

[Tellurian]

46. Exactly..

Over the years, Bush has stacked the SCOTUS with RW Judges with Federalist leanings. (their philosophy mirrors the Constitution. The radical difference is they promote a corporate Global Economy at the expense of the planet and the People) If the SCOTUS doesn't recognize the changes made by Bush, we might be ok. But Bush has handed them the tools to subjugate the masses if we refuse to obey.

we need one more rec.. if you can..thanks.

[grytpype]

7. OH NOES!!!! IMPEACH MENT NOWWWW!!!!!

[Tellurian]

9. Well, for sure, I've got that straight! Thats is an impossibility..

Bush and Cheney have shredded the Constitution.

here for a good read:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

10. It's simple.

STILL TO MUCH MONEY TO BE MADE!

[Tellurian]

17. hmmm...good point...nm

[whathappened]

11. this shit is

pissing me off to no end , i had a dream just like the rest of you last nov. and all i see are a bunch of over paid shit heads doing the same thing as they did befor we voted , there is so much money changeing hands in dc right now , no body there can just say no anymore , just my opion , maybe i'm full of shit or just dam tired of this open ended killing of people of this world

[Tellurian]

19. Well, this is the WHOLE point of this thread..

Our world has changed into a world of instant gratification.
If people don't get what they want in a week, they loose hope.

So, I am trying to ascertain just how long this is going to take and if we will be successful after all is said and done.

[Miss Chybil]

14. Because quagmires are notorious for bogging things down. nt

[Tellurian]

20. Ok... can you expand on your definition of quagmires?

I really want to know..

thanks-

[Miss Chybil]

29. Well, I don't know the dictionary defintion of a quagmire without looking it up,

but in my mind it's like quicksand, you have to move get out, but when you move you start to sink. Don't get me wrong, I think we should get out of Iraq today. I'm just saying, it's a big mess and politicians don't do so well in quicksand. They have a tendency to stand there for awhile. The problem with that is, if they stand too long in quicksand, they'll start to sink. Thus, is my picture of a quagmire.

[Tellurian]

38. Heres what I know..

We're smarter than the Republicans. They don't think for themselves...someone else does all the work for them and tells them what to do.. I know it works for them because there are people who do nothing but create strategies and e-mail them daily with updates. This I find is a major flaw in the Demo system of getting things done. Everyone is out their with another plan co sponsored with a fellow congress critter and it gets lost (not all the time, sometimes )in the shuffle. It would be great if the unification of the Democratic Party was a priority for Congressional people. They would be more powerful as a team effort than the squabbling that goes on because someone thinks their plan is a better plan. imho-

[noamnety]

15. They aren't interested in shutting it down.

If I don't want my daughter to go out on a date on a school night, I don't give her $50 to spend while she's out.

[Tellurian]

21. I can't relate.. I have 4 sons..

we had furniture issues..

I'm on my 4th and final set because they are all finaly out of the house!

And, thats a Good Thing!

[Tellurian]

24. Ah, ...

Ha, I was taking your comment literally..\

I get it..! True..

I've been back and forth on another thread..

[noamnety]

27. heh.

Here I was trying to figure out the metaphor behind replacing the furniture. :)

[Kablooie]

30. The Democrats secretly think war is kinda cool.

Why do politicians like other people dying so much?

[Tellurian]

32. The Majority of Dems want it shut down..

So, you're talking about the unconscionable Republicans?

[Kablooie]

33. Then why don't they pull together and DO something.

They are the same timid pussys that were pushed around by the Republicans.

Maybe this is why the Republicans got control in the first place.

[AtomicKitten]

34. They fear the rhetoric hitting them upside the head.

It's an age-old Republican trick. Criticize in advance for what you don't want folks to do. Talk about "cut and run" and "cutting off funding" and hit it over and over again.

Instead of just standing up and doing the right thing now, the Dems are faltering and equivocating, afraid of what they feel is buying into what they might get down the road. Hell, they're getting it now so they may as well pull up their socks and do the right thing and STOP THE WAR!!!!

It's not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do politically, but they just can't see that.

They have assumed the position:

[Tellurian]

39. You have the Koolest graphics at your finger tips..

more than anyone else I know on DU!

You are a joy to behold!

Thanks, AK! :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

41. de nada

[Tellurian]

42. Roker's twin..nm

[Miss Chybil]

49. Recommended. Thanks. nt

[ProudDad]

52. The quick version is

that the Dems and repukes are nearly all corporate capitalists and have a vested interest in the economic status-quo. They're all interested in controlling all petroleum production because the phony-baloney "economy" they're getting richer from floats on a sea of cheap oil.

Don't expect anything from Congress unless they are FORCED to do what we want rather than what furthers their own personal fortunes...

As was proclaimed during the reign of another despotic presidency, "follow the money!"