"...not enough votes to override a veto..." is a meaningless canard.... [View All]

[mike_c]

It's propaganda, smoke and mirrors. The Democratic leadership of the House does not need even a single vote to stop the war crimes against Iraq. Not one-- not if Nancy Pelosi has their support as Speaker of the House, which is just about as solid as any speaker has ever enjoyed because Pelosi is an historic figure.

All appropriations must originate in the House. They must be authored and sponsored by members of the House. They must be placed on the legislative agenda of the House, both at the committee level and on the floor, by the democratic leadership, i.e. Nancy Pelosi. Not one single vote is necessary to override a presidential veto if any of those things fail to happen, all of which are under absolute and unassailable House democratic party control. Bear in mind that Nancy Pelosi's district is one of the most liberal in California, so she would not even face reelection issues in her district.

Also, it is the proper role of congress to do just this-- to appropriate OR DECLINE TO APPROPRIATE funds for war. This is one of the essential constitutional checks and balances on the power of the executive to wage war. There is nothing controversial or subversive about the House declining to produce a supplemental appropriation for the war. Not doing so would not even directly affect the already established and appropriated defense budget.

That canard about there not being enough votes to override a veto is a distraction from the real issue. House dems can stop the war without even a single vote. There would be nothing to veto, and no override necessary.