Bush is going to send Troops to Iraq regardless of Overwhelming opposition

[Homer12]

Be it a slap in the face to the Democrats and the majority of Americans he is going to escalate this war for whatever greedy delusion psychotic reasons he and his neo-con corporate lackeys have.

If he does not get the money from congress they will just re-deploy troops from other areas.

I smell a constitutional crises, unfortunately Bush stacked the Supreme court with his lackeys.

[LSparkle]

1. Seriously ... this is a big "middle finger" to Congress

If the troops are set to be in Iraq by the END OF THIS MONTH, how can the Dems "de-fund" them without looking like they "don't support the troops"? This is a TOTAL power-grab by RatBastard, a FUCK YOU to the very idea of Congressional oversight.

This is gonna get UGLY ...

[AndyA]

3. I think you are right.

This is going to get very nasty, very quickly.

And the Democratic Congress is going to have to play tough. Quickly. Slap the bastard pResident down, and tell him we aren't going to take any more of his sh!t.

[Waya]

4. Exactly......

...Bush is daring Congress to oppose him....

[dos pelos]

5. Need to get up to speed quickly,big ugly nasty fight ahead

Unfortunately this is no time for mild letters of admonition and warning.No time for polite gestures.The trembling prostration before this administration has to stop.Democrats can fund raise all they want,I don't care at this point,invite all the damn lobbyists over.What matters is stopping the war.Bush will escalate,he will damn the torpedoes ,full speed ahead,damn the people,damn the congress.The democrats are still on a learning curve here,still trying mild gestures and appeasement,still in denial.A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS AHEAD.Put the teacups and the finger sandwiches down,there is a street fight in the alley to attend to.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

2. Impeach, Impeach, Impeach

eom

[Peace Patriot]

6. I think there is a very brilliant strategy under way.

Of course he's going to escalate. See this thread on why...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3073715&mesg_id=3073715

Now then, follow this sequence of events:

Pelosi/Reid issue a very strong letter to Bush saying no escalation (yesterday).

This followed the retiring two Iraq generals saying no escalation--and a whole bunch of hawks (Biden, George Will for chrissakes...)

Ted Kennedy just gave a speech at the National Press Club, today, saying no escalation, and is introducing a resolution today or tomorrow, changing the IWR (obsolete--Saddam gone, no WMDs, no 9/11 connection), to Bush has to bring any escalation to Congress and get it okayed, to get funds for escalation.

The Resolution (the relevant part)
"Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the number for such forces which existed as of January 9, 2007, without a specific authorization from Congress by law for such an increase."

(Kennedy's brilliant speech and link to full text of Resolution)
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002307.php

So here's the formulation of the issue: the bifurcating of Iraq funding into escalation money vs. current levels money.

Kennedy's resolution passes. (I don't think he would be introducing it this early, if they didn't have the votes.) The House passes a similar resolution. They send the joint resolution to Bush. He says fuck off. He escalates anyway, dipping into other budgets or slush funds--in his immensely unaccountable finances. Congress has meanwhile sent the joint Resolution to budget committees to sort out escalation funds from current level funds. Pelosi/Reid send Bush a second letter, asking why he's escalating when they told him not to, and what funds is he using for escalation?--and accompanies the letter with subpoenas for financial records. Bush again says fuck off. Waxman and Conyers introduce a bill of impeachment.

Thus the issue is joined (as Howard Baker said in the Watergate hearings). The issue is the all-important "balance of powers" and Congress' exclusive powers to, a) declare war, and b) fund war.

------------------------

So, no, they can't actively go over to the White House and prevent Bush/Cheney from giving orders to the military, to send more troops. (And where the military is going to find more troops, I don't know.) But they CAN bring the Constitutional crisis that has to happen here to a head, and quickly. And that appears to be what they're doing. If Bush/Cheney directly defy Congress' war and war funding powers, and rightful subpoena power, they are toast. We will have a REAL TIME violation of the Constitution, that doesn't involve murky records and secrets, and all their long list of past crimes. Gauntlet thrown. Happening NOW. Even the most retro Bushite Congressmen might get on board. I noticed Feingold getting on Bush on the most recent "signing statement," too. This IS the issue; Congress's power, and the "balance of powers." And I think they're going for it. Now.

Bush could back down. But I don't know if he has the power to. He is being run by the oil giants, it seems--likely through Cheney. (See that first article above. It's about the PENDING oil contracts in Iraq. They need to keep control of this Iraq government until they are signed, which is imminent. The writer says that's what the "surge" is for--to get the contracts signed.)

[kimmerspixelated]

7. I think you are right on the money!

I almost hope it happens just like you say, as scarily close as it might get to increasing the bloodshed, because, the consitution is at stake, and numnuts is in a corner, right here, right now! Sieze the moment-Pelosi!

[cassiepriam]

8. I don't think Bush can back down. Not in his personality to do so.

He is pretty crazy.

[magellan]

9. Oh hell, what's another Constitutional crisis among fascists?

Impeach the bastard. Before he kills again.