Doesn't congress have chimp over the barrel when it comes to the war?

[IsItJustMe]

I may be wrong, but bottom line, if chimp veto's this bill, will it not have to go back to congress to have changes made so that chimp will sign it?

And lets say, congress doesn't make the changes he wants? There would be no money for the war and a withdrawal would have to occur, wouldn't it?

I know this probably won't happen because the Dems are to afraid of NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS? It would be spun that way, but in actuality, everybody knows that would not happen.

It seems to me that chimp always uses strong arm tactics to get his way. It would be nice to see the congress push back just has hard.

[PDJane]

1. Yep.

It's the old rock and a hard place thing.

[cassiepriam]

2. How is he over a barrel?

[IsItJustMe]

7. Seems self evident. If congress doen't fund the war, he can't go on fighting it.

[cassiepriam]

12. Wouldn't he just keep the troops there, on a shoestring? And blame the Dems for the hardship?

Bush will not pull the troops.

[IsItJustMe]

18. Short of removing him from office or waiting and hoping the next election cycle will turn further

our way, it seems to me that the Dems just have to roll the dice and see what comes out. With approx. 60% of the country moving against this war, the gamble might well be worth it.

But your are probably correct that the chimp would find a way around it. It would make it much harder to continue though.

[cassiepriam]

22. Not difficult for him. For the troops. And he could care less about that.

Bush will still have all of his creature comforts.
I don't see lack of funding changing things at all.

[youngdem]

3. Nope. Two words. 'Signing Statement'

He will simply veto this law, and when it is sent back in a similar form, he will sign it and attach a Signing Statement that will nullify the withdrawal provisions.

Anyone doubt that?

[whistle]

4. Bush sees the president as a dictator and he will take this as far as

...he can or until he is removed from office and locked away....IMPEACH NOW!

[cassiepriam]

13. No I agree, he will ignore the Dems and find a way around anything they do.

He has done that his whole life. He is a master at it.

[Bucky]

5. No, the chess move here is that forcing Bush to veto this will cost him support.

This timetable debate is a war of attrition. We'll only win the big dispute by losing quite a few small fights along the way.

That's not a great metaphor when you compare it to all the people literally dying in Iraq. But it's the only way democracy will allow.

[youngdem]

9. How? He's only in office another 22 months.

We don't have the luxury of time anyway. Our kids are dying in Iraq EVERY DAY. The troops are the ones that lose a war of attrition, NOT the ultra-rich, lame duck, sociopathic president.

We will win this issue when a Dem takes the oath then gets us out of Iraq. Nothing before then is gonna do it, I'm afraid.

Democracy is not what we are dealing with here anyway. One side is trying democracy while the other side is in full oligarch tyrant mode. They don't appreciate or respect our tactics, and they simply ignore inconvenient facts....like laws.

So, Bush will simply sign this law when it gets as good as it is gonna get, then he will use a Signing Statement to finish off the law how he desires.

If we want to do anything with a spine, we should somehow prohibit signing statements first. Otherwise, we are masturbating.

[cassiepriam]

14. But he doesn't care about support does he? He has nothing to lose by digging in.

[Bucky]

19. Then we take that damned Scotch terrier hostage and force 'em to testify

No wait, that's not what I mean. Bush is a human being, if only by accident of birth. He does care about things. Like all seventh year presidents, he's running for the history books. He's not the freshest Big Mac in the microwave, but he does want to accomplish some things in the world before he leaves. I mean, he can't really, but he does at least want to try.

Does he ever remind you of that old SNL skit about the cat that kept trying to drive the car, only to crash every time? Like Bush himself, that cat was basically a drug-related joke that wasn't funny. But I digress.

Bush won't get anything done without Congress. Now threatening to cut funding to the troops is a PR disaster. It's about the only move the Dems could make that would help the Republicans get their mojo back. Pelosi is wisely avoiding that. But short of that, the Democrats can continue to hammer Bush into behaving. Twenty two months is a long time. He can do a lot of damage or he can be hammerlocked into cleaning up a bit of his own mess.

I don't see impeachment on the horizon. That sucks, but in the end Bush lacks the consistancy of character and the intelligence required to be stubborn enough to bring on a full Constitutional crisis. All he can really do is act pissy and drive the ball to the fence on a few issues where he's basically already beaten. When the Supreme Court ultimately tells his advisors they have to testify (if it ever goes that far) he'll knuckle under--as big a coward as any other bully has ever been.

In the end, we'll dribble our troops out of Iraq and the next president will sit down with one of Iran's grown up ministers and we'll hammer out a deal and the Constitution will thaw and start to turn green again.

In the meantime, enjoy the snowball fights.

[cassiepriam]

21. Interesting scenario. You may be right. He would throw his grandmother under the

train if he thought it was to his advantage.

On the other hand, he is insane and drunk most of the time.
And I can see him digging in and getting stubborn just for the heck of it.

Will be an interesting couple of years.

[Robbien]

6. No.

Congress will pass some kind of funding. Anything else included in the funding bill which Bush doesn't like will just go away under a signing statement.

So this bill today, if it ever lands on Bush's desk it can be signed, the money will be spent and everything else is irrelevant. The Iraq carnage is funded.

[Vincardog]

10. PArdon me, where in the constitution does it say the (p)Resident has an option of a signing

statement?

When I took civics class the (p)Resident could sign, veto or a "Pocket veto".

There is no option to unilaterally change laws via any "signing statement".

[Robbien]

11. No one is going by the constitution these days

Where have you been?

Bush doesn't veto, or pocket veto. He does signing statements which makes everything he doesn't like in bills just go poof.

[cassiepriam]

15. I agree. Bush will ignore it all. The troops will stay. No matter what.

[Vincardog]

17. Don't you believe "Elections have consequences"?

If no one is going by the constitution these days, are you licking the boot of the dick-Tatar or can I expect to see you taking up arms?

[cassiepriam]

20. I used to. Time will tell if I do once again. :(

[Flabbergasted]

8. So kucinich is right,

[gulliver]

16. The timeline won't make it into the Senate version.

At best this is just the Democrats doing what they were elected to do and the Republicans stuck standing up for staying in Iraq past fall 2008. It will be hard for Republicans to defend their side when we are still in Iraq next year. It will be a lot easier to sell that the GOP voted lock-step for Bush's escalation of the war than that the Dems voted against the troops.