Congress does NOT need a veto proof majority to stop funding war crimes....

[mike_c]

First and foremost, the war against Iraq should not even be a political issue. It's a criminal enterprise-- an international crime against humanity. That Pelosi and Reid are willing to treat it as a political game-- that they're willing to "compromise" some of the most important principles that civilized people expect in international conduct-- is shameful enough in itself. Utterly shameful.

Even worse is that such a Faustian bargain isn't even necessary. Behind the political smoke and mirrors that the democratic congress is using to obscure the real issues lies a shocking truth: none of this is necessary.

Appropriations for committing war crimes against Iraq MUST originate in the House of Representatives. Bush has sent a supplemental funding request for money to continue crimes, but ultimately that request can only produce the money if Congress originates an appropriations bill. Remember-- the purpose of the requested appropriations is the commission of international crimes. Congress has a responsibility to REFUSE to appropriate such funds. NO VETO PROOF MAJORITY is necessary to accomplish this. Joe Lieberman can piss up a rope in the other chamber-- he has no power to influence the outcome if the House pulls the plug.

This is what Speaker Pelosi has the power to do. There is no question in my mind that her position as Speaker of the House would survive any challenge this might inspire-- she is an historic figure and could present Congress with an even more historic opportunity-- but even if it didn't, doing the right thing is more important than compromising to commit war crimes and further one's political career.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. True. No bill, no veto. Can't get much simpler.

[AndyA]

2. The best thing Pelosi could do right now is...nothing.

No bills. No funding. The troops come home. The war is over.

And Bush ended it with his veto. Quite simple, actually.

[mike_c]

3. exactly....

Pelosi is buying the war for the democrats instead. Up until this supplemental request dems had no power to control the purse-- they could not block an appropriations bill and they didn't have the votes to defeat one.

Today they can absolutely do the former and could probably do the later, even with defections from within-- but again, there is no need for defeating a supplemental appropriation in any form because the dems can simply refuse to write the bill or move it through committee. Period. End of illegal war.

[marlakay]

5. Thats what I told her

in my email is by doing nothing they are staying strong. I told her that it is sad we can't count on our congress or senate anymore to speak for us as the majority has spoken very loudly. I said they are more worried about headlines that say Dems didn't support the troops then in standing strong.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. You realize that around 65% of Americans oppose not funding the war, right?

Sorry, but the country is not on your side on this one.

[mike_c]

6. then the country has gone the way of the good germans....

First, a SOLID majority of Americans DO want an end to the war against Iraq. Second, the war against Iraq is illegal and immoral-- since when did the tyranny of the majority allow the nation to be pressed into committing crimes against humanity? Finally, to the extent that that's true-- and I'm not sure I even believe it-- it is only true because the democratic congress has allowed the republican white house to frame the issue as one of "supporting the troops" rather than as "America is committing international crimes against humanity." How long do you think people would go along with that idea?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. You're wrong on the last point.

The Republican Congress from 2002-2006 framed the issue of supporting the troops, further exacerbated during the 2004 election. By the time this Democratic congress began, that die had long been cast.

[mike_c]

9. again, we'll just have to agree to disagree....

That die is cast only to the extent that the democrats in congress allow it to be cast. How many of them have you heard even TRYING to counter it? Dennis Kucinich and maybe a couple of others, but NONE of the democratic leadership. Why is the dem leadership signing on to a neocon republican meme, utterly without objection?

[The Magistrate]

10. If You Want To Frame The Issue, Sir

As "America is committing international crimes against humanity", be prepared to see support for your side of this drop to something like six percent of the voting public, if it remains even that high.

It is a fact that about the proportion of the public as wants to see the war brought to an end does not want funding for the war cut off at this moment. That is a political reality, that people who are actually in office have to recognize and accommodate. Congress no more can, or should, attempt to rule by fiat in defiance of what the people want in a democracy than the executive ought to.

What is necessary is to work on altering the view of the poeple till aboput the same number as want the war ended support using the power of purse to end it presently. That is going to take a campaign of political struggle, that will necessarily be of some duration. The matter will need to brought up again, in various appropriations Bills for the next fiscal year, which commences in October. Riders on other, popular Bills, ougt to be, and probably will be, employed. The reports this current Bill mandates will be occassions for hammering failed policies and highlighting administration lies and incompetence. All these things will provide opportunities for people to change their minds on the subject. For that matter, there is not even any assurance the administration will not veto this Bill, if it passes both Houses.

[onenote]

13. thanks for the cogent analysis

I'm continuously amazed at how, on a discusssion forum about "politics", posters are often berated for pointing out political realities.

Non--political reality: the war should never have been started and should end as soon as possible.
Political reality -- It was a political act and it will take a political act to end the war.

[KoKo]

21. There are those who feel that "Morality" should trump Political Realities, though.

There should always be that "tug of war." Given the extent of evil and crimes against humanity of these Criminals it would seem that in this particular situation that "Moral Values" might need to trump the Political.

I think there have been times on this Earth when those to factions classed and "Morality" won for a brief time before "business as usual" trumped again.

These are very dark times.

[The Magistrate]

22. And When Morality Has The Votes, Ma'am, It Will

That is the political reality....

When morality is ascendant, suffering generally increases greatly, precisely because of the tendency of moralists to disregard practical considerations in conflict with their purity.

[KoKo]

29. I'm not talking about "purity" or RW Fundies or Religious Fanatics

of other stripes. I'm talking about crimes against each other and the "rule of law." Maybe it's my definition of morality but I thought that most civilizations did have some laws that that had been agreed on. And, the Geneva Conventions after WWII were pretty explicit. The immorality of not following laws and allowing the lawbreakers to reign causes death and destruction and collapse of societal structures.

It's not "purity" to point that out in these dark times, imho.

[Reterr]

32. Well clearly Skinner doesn't

get these "political realities :shrug:.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=946731&mesg_id=946731

I don't think its as simple as -all the people frustrated by this path the Democrats chose are politically naive. For instance I think it is naive to put implicit trust in one's party and just trust them to do what is smartest, let alone what is right. It isn't as though the Democrats haven't screwed stuff up before.
As for the American people, I doubt that a sufficiently large percentage of those opposed to cutting funding for this war, take time way from American Idol to have really strong opinions on the matter. The majority of the people in this country are more obsessed with their day to day concerns than with the war. Those that are strongly opposed to cutting funding aren't voting Democrati anyway.

[The Magistrate]

40. My Personal View, Ma'am

Is that the same Bill that was vetoed should have been sent up again, and if vetoed again, sent up again, and so on and so on until the enemy cracked. When a fight is on, people have to choose sides, and it seems to me a fair bet that those who both dislike the war and do not want to see an immediate cut-off of funds would be pulled more to the former portion of their feelings than to the latter in the crunch, particularly as that original Bill does indeed provide funds, and the hugely unpopular administration, with its veto, would be the agency of their denial.

But it is not my habit to make strenuous denunciation of people who, in a circumstance fraught with peril, and bearing personal responsibility for outcomes both short-term and long issuing from it, reach conclusions different from mine concerning the best course, and do not display the ruthlessness that comes naturally to me when they do so. There is a good deal to be said for caution in strategy: plungers on occassion win big, but only plungers meet devastating losses that might have been avoided. The principle of engaging only in fights you are sure to win is the policy that is soundest most often.

The situations in which the idea that it is better to go down fighting applies are those in which over-all defeat is inevitable, and no considerations of husbanding strength apply, or possibilities of further engagements exist. There are opportunities for further fighting in the present political situation. There is also every expectation that the ground on which these fights can occur will grow steadily less favorable for the enemy over coming months. The fighting in Iraq is not going to start going better; the occupation of Iraq is not going to start growing more popular. The public is not going change its view that the venture in Iraq is solely the responsibility of the Republicans and their administration. In six to eight weeks, work begins on the budgets for the next fiscal year, the year that overlaps the election campaign.

[Reterr]

41. I agree with most of what you say

Except this part:
The public is not going change its view that the venture in Iraq is solely the responsibility of the Republicans and their administration.

The Republican spin machine already seems to want this to be pinned on Bush and Bush alone -Bush sucks but he is only one part of the whole rotten structure. Romney or Guiliani or whichever other freak gets the nod from the rethugs, will be just as bad and I hope the short-attention span of the public doesn't mean that just as Iran-Contra is water under the bridge for Repug.s, the Iraq mess ends up being another such.

[The Magistrate]

42. On Occassion, Ma'am, the Simplicity Of the Mass Mind Is a Blessing

This is one of them. Bush, failed war, and a few other things besides, all are Republican to the people now, and will remain so for years. Attempts to distance individual Republicans on the national scene from it will have the effect of spit-balls shot at a steam-roller. Rove played for a re-alignement, and he got one, only not the one he schemed for....

[Brassballs]

46. Huge difference betw Weimar republic and USA

The Germans wanted to RULE and enslave other countries.
USA is trying to establish a democracy in Iraq. If you
are against a free and democratic Iraq then you are on
the opposite side from me and 65% of Americans.

[marlakay]

7. Didn't realize that

but it doesn't surprise me with what is said on our news media. Everyone is so afraid in this country of looking bad with the troops its crazy.

[Cameron27]

11. Amy Stoddard from The Hill, just said

that by submitting this funding bill, the Democrats just picked up the Republican vote for a September withdrawal bill. Apparently that's the strategy. They won't get anything by pushing timelines now, but there's a deal with the repubs for Sept.

They're talking about it now on Tucker, and if she's right, it's not a bad strategy.

[mike_c]

12. it's an awful "strategy...."

We'll continue committing crimes against humanity today in exchange for-- unspecified-- support for stopping them in four months? HOW MANY WILL DIE IN THE NAME OF POLITICAL COMPROMISE?

[Cameron27]

16. I know it's awful mike.

I've been angry all day, and I guess I was trying to make some sense out of their capitulation.

It makes me sick.

[calimary]

23. Makes me sick, as well. Frankly, I don't care about brokering deals

for September. September is LIGHTYEARS away. HOW MANY of our troops will DIE between now and then? Die for a LIE, that is? Is that really worth it????? At some point, I stop being a political junkie and activist and just revert to being a mom. A mom. A woman with KIDS. One of those kids is male. With some friends and even young teachers who are of military age - the same age as I see among the obits day after day after day after day after FUCKING DAY. And I wonder how many other moms will be unconsolable by September. It's too horrible even to try to wrap my mind around.

All those precious babies whose lives will be squandered. By the jerk-ass head of a party that boasts about worshipping a "culture of life."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. Approximately 400-600 US troops will die. As will 1000's of others.

:argh:

[calimary]

26. That's about it, isn't it? Aren't we now averaging 100 troop deaths per month?

June...

July...

August...

September... (let's see, that's four more months @ about 100 troop deaths/month = 400 additional deaths, approximately)

When we'll probably have to give it another six months (let's see...)

One - October...

Two - November...

Three - December...

Four - January 2008...

Five - February...

SIX MONTHS - March... (so, let's see, that's another six months with another 100 troop deaths on average per month = approximately 600 MORE deaths)

When we'll probably be told that just six more months should do it. Let's look at September... (let's see... four months, and six months, with approximately 400 troop deaths + approximately 600 troop deaths = HEY! Ding-Ding-Ding! The answer is A Nice Round ONE THOUSAND BRAND NEW SHINY RED-WHITE-AND-BLUE - emphasis on the blood red - TROOP DEATHS!!! WOW, Monty! What do I win???)

And that, let's remember, is strictly estimated troop deaths. It doesn't count loss of limbs, loss of sight, loss of hearing, loss of internal organs, loss of blood, loss of pieces of brain and skull, loss of equilibrium, loss of psychological coping, loss of sanity...

The next time you see bush's face, look closely, and learn. That's the face of a person who is going to go to Hell when he dies. cheney, too.

[Zynx]

30. It will take close to a year to pull out of Iraq anyway.

Yanking money doesn't do any particular good in this regard either, as a withdrawl is going to still need to be funded, and will still involve quite a few more months of combat operations as we clean out our millions of tons of gear over there.

That's just the real world.

[KoKo]

31. We are always "promised" to just "look ahead" there's a strategy..

and many of us have believed that for two long. The strategy is never what they say it is. And the benchmarks keep getting put farther and farther out with the excuse over and over of...not enough votes, not the right time, just give us a little more rope and we will succeed.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

15. Welcome to DU, enjoy your stay

:hi:

[mike_c]

18. oh that's rich-- "...this war has to be fought and won."

Here, have some KoolAid. It's what all the good germans are drinking....

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

17. This is what I never understood about this whole "debate"

Pelosi and the Dems hold all the cards. All they have to do is...nothing. Bush can't force a vote to fund the war, and neither can the Rethugs. This thing could be over today. No compromise, no tenuous promises for a future withdrawal. It could be OVER.

No one is willing to say that, let alone back it up with action. How many will die because of the spinelessness exhibited today?

[KoKo]

20. String us along because of something in Iraq...Bush/Blair Vision

some kind of "dark thing" they don't want to tell us. Whatever it is it's evil.

[Gregorian]

25. Damn you! This is the most brilliant thing I've seen in ages.

So obvious. And without any doubt, so true.

This is plain common sense here. But there might be a problem with that little bit about Congress signing the resolution to invade Iraq. If that's an invalid resolution, which I fully believe it is, then this should be feasible.

General Wesley Clark says the war is legal. I'm just saying that as a possible footnote for research. But I was shocked when he said it. I don't think he's correct.

[mike_c]

27. I suspect Clark said that for a very practical reason....

If the war is not legal, then every soldier who deployed is a defacto war criminal for abrogating their responsibility to disobey illegal orders. U.S. and international law are quite clear in that regard, and Clark is a "troops loyalist" above all else. I don't think Clark could EVER bring himself to admit the illegality of the war against Iraq.

[Adelante]

34. No, I don't see that conclusion

What he's done is illustrate a case that can be made for legality (see below). What he goes on to do is make a case for illegitimacy, which he thinks is more provable. As examples, the Geneva Conventions and torture, misuse of prewar intelligence, misleading Congress - all those things Democrats in Congress are investigating in order to bring the truth of the criminal nature of Bushco's war to the American people.

[Gregorian]

37. That's how I've felt about his position.

And again, like I said in another reply, I fully respect Wes Clark.

Congress was lied into that war. Not that they didn't know better.

[Adelante]

39. "Congress was lied into that war. Not that they didn't know better."

And there's the rub. Bush has the IWR in his hot little hands, whatever the various reasons for its passage by Congress, who was lied to but knew better. Remember, the Intelligence Committee did have the true intelligence in the NIE of October 1 2002. And it did not reflect what was being publicized by the administration. The Committee did make it available to all of Congress to review, although only only 6 or 10 Senators and Representatives actually went and read it. They all would have known that Bushco was lying and they could have stopped it. The Committee did insist on a redacted version for the full Congress, which was not provided, but a whole new summary instead, which was a case for war. Bob Graham, Dick Durbin, Robert Byrd and others who had read the NIE tried like hell, but failed, to convince for a No vote because the evidence wasn't there. The Members who relied on the summary alone, irresponsible as they may have been, were lied into the war, (as was the American public lied into the war) -- but only "believed" because they didn't want to vote against it. A strategic vote to get inspectors back in the game, a fear of appearing soft or unpatriotic, leverage for a UN resolution, an upcoming election, desire to run in 2004 -- all in play. Bush took what they gave him and took it to war. Proving it was not a vote for war and therefore illegal is wrought with difficulty. Proving the American people were lied into war is straightforward and true. That's why the investigations are so critical. And I think this is where Clark's "legitimacy" case has merit.

[Jai4WKC08]

44. Think again

Clark has said the war in Kosovo was illegal but legitimate. See my #43.

Besides, even if the war were illegal, no one would hold the troops criminally responsible. Yes, they have an obligation to disobey illegal orders, but that doesn't include fighting in a war that the US government has approved. I can't think of any time in history when fighting men and women were expected to make that sort of judgment. True, after WWII, some of the generals and admirals were convicted of prosecuting an illegal war, and the Japanese generals were executed for it (a matter of simple racism in my opinion). But never the troops.

[Adelante]

33. Clark's lecture on "Just War Theory" at UCLA in January 2007

Clark claims the war was not technically illegal, but "illegitimate" based on factors entailed in a war internationally accepted as "just." He explains his judgment that the several UN resolutions and the IWR (combined) provide technical legality.

I was shocked myself, but FYI, here it is.

The truth is, The War Powers Act says that if the President introduces forces, he has to terminate that military operation in 60 days unless there’s a declaration of war or unless Congress votes to extend it in some way, or the President certifies he needs another 30 days to safely remove the troops.

The War Powers Act has been invoked 114 times, and it remains highly controversial, but it was not an issue in the case of Iraq, because the President won Congressional support for his action - House Joint Resolution 144 on October 11, 2002. It gave the President of the United States what he needed which was the authority to use force. He took it to the UN and then he used it.

So, U.S. law hasn’t been an issue thus far in the intervention in Iraq, and international law - at least so far- has not technically been an issue. The U.S. action had international legal authority through a whole series of UN Security Council resolutions issued under the authority of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, and dealing with the issue of Iraq’s compliance with the obligations enforced by the UN Special Commission that was sent into Iraq at the end of the Gulf War to search for and demobilize Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441, dated 8 November 2002, gave the U.S. authority to act under Chapter 7 which is the the chapter of the UN Security Council, UN Security Charter, UN Charter which deals with the use of force or threats of force. And so, typically when you take action under Chapter 7, what that means is you’re authorized to use force, and in the- in this resolution if you read it, it, it states that it’s the final warning to Iraq. So, the administration did take that as the full authorization it needed.

Many nations sought a second resolution, but we don’t recognize this very often in our own domestic politics, but UN Security Council Resolutions have the force of international law, and some governments cannot take military action without it being authorized by the UN Security Council. It’s supposed to bind nations, and that’s the signatory of the, that’s what the signature of the Charter means when nations are admitted.

So, we went to war on legally sufficient grounds, both nationally and internationally. The problem wasn’t legality. It was legitimacy, for U.S. actions went against the broad notions of legitimacy which have emerged at the heart of Just War Theory, the adherence to which may be for more important than technical legality.

-snip

And what happened to us, I would submit, is that we begin immediately after 2002, after the UN Security Council resolution was passed, we begin undercutting our own legitimacy in the operation in Iraq. Even in 2002, the Neocon movement discussed broader aims and more intrusive motivations for the intervention in Iraq, and by February 2003 the President had begun talking about his aim of establishing Democracy, undercutting the Just War premise of the purpose for the operation which was directed at enforcing the UN SCR about weapons of mass destruction.

In the Neocon publications and the rumors circulating throughout the region, states in the region understood that the United States was going to Iraq as a first step, not a last step and that it wasn’t about weapons of mass destruction. It was about broader geostrategic issues. So, we had, from the outset, undercut the legitimacy of the legality that we received.

-snip

The administration begin to talk about the need to change a regime, but that wasn’t the purpose of the operation in international law. The administration tried to take credit for capturing Saddam and bringing him to justice, but that wasn’t the purpose for the operation. And when we failed to find weapons of mass destruction it furthered the sort of triple blow against the legitimacy of the operation.

Then we came along and insisted our soldiers not be susceptible to war crimes charges under the International Criminal Court. We made our allies sign statements to this. The actions at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo further undercut the idea of legitimacy. We were going against the very international conventions that we had promoted ourselves, and then the news on the renditions and the secret prison sites, which violate U.S. and international law.

Then in the Q&A:

Michael Intrilligator: (inaudible) But I do want to challenge your one point. You made the point that this war is illegitimate but legal. I question the legality of this war. As I understand the situation, we are members of the, the UN treaty. We signed the UN Charter. The UN charter’s part of our Constitution as a, as a treaty that we, that we agreed to. The Charter says that a member state does not attack another member state unless there are two conditions: One that they’re attacked and in self defense and second is that they can, they have the approval of the Security Council. Now your, your fellow General Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council on February 5th, 2003 and made an impassioned speech to try to convince other members of the Security Council to endorse our attack of Iraq. They did not agree to that. So, by rules of the Charter, we are- this is an illegal war. We are as much an outlaw as Saddam was when he invaded Kuwait in our attack on Iraq. What is your reaction?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know, I’d hate to disagree with the Eminent Former Dean of the Burkle Center. (laughter) I think it gets into the technicality of what is legal and what- I’m accepting the administration’s case that their war is legal because of the wording of the UN Security Council Resolution which does have the force of law and which they cited, as well as the U.S. Congressional resolution. Now, you could go deeper into it and say that the UN Security Council resolution was buttressed by false evidence, and that evidence was debunked until (inaudible) should rightly come back and withdraw its authority to act. But I think that, were I to get lost in that discussion, it doesn’t help illuminate the more fundamental point that I’m trying to make. So, I’m accepting for sake of argumentation that there can be a case made that the war is legal, but even if you accept that case, you can’t help but recognize that we’ve lost legitimacy in the action we’re pursuing. And the legitimacy is far more important in winning the war than the administration’s technical claim of legality, and that’s my premise.

Transcript:

http://clarkiw.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/just-war-theory/

[mike_c]

35. his conclusions contrast with those of a great many lawyers and legal scholars....

Not to mention those of the then head of the United Nations, Koffe Annan, and the head of UNSCOM, Hans Blix.

[Adelante]

38. I don't say his conclusions are not debatable

Of course, they are. Why not post some of the opposing arguments from the experts you cite? I have to go out today, but I will check in later to talk about it with you.

[Gregorian]

36. We didn't go to war on "legally sufficient grounds"

That's where I part paths with that discussion.

Congress was lied into that war.

However, I totally love and respect Wes Clark. And I would bet he has a logical rebuttal.

[Jai4WKC08]

43. I totally agree about being lied into war, but...

I think the point that Clark was trying to make is that, given a UN Chapter 7 resolution which specifically authorizes the use of force and a US Congressional resolution doing the same, the only way you can argue the war is illegal is to prove that the evidence upon which those resolutions were based was purposely falsified. Which I think he readily admits may be true -- he has certainly said point blank on numerous occasions that the intelligence was "hyped" to make it sound like much more than was really there. But if you want to make a legal case, the kind that would stand up in an international court, it's too easy to get bogged down in who knew what, when, based on what, with what intention, and who had the burden of proof anyway, and so forth. Why get into all that inconclusive and in many cases unprovable stuff when it can be more simply argued that the war was illegitimate by the very long standing code of Just War theory?

A funny thing. I've heard Clark argue that the war in Kosovo was NOT legal, but that it was legitimate because there was an imminent threat to the Kosovar people, all diplomatic means of intervention had been exhausted, and the effort was condoned by a broad alliance in a region where they had a vested interest. It was not legal, not technically, because the UN was purposely by-passed (and turned a blind eye) knowing that Russia would exercise their veto.

Edit to add: WesDem is correct above that Clark has been adamantly calling for investigation into how we were led into war. I know he wants the truth about who knew what, when, and so forth. So I wouldn't say he's written off the legality issues. But he more recently argued that regaining our legitimacy as a nation needs to be the Number One foreign policy objective of the next administration, so it obviously weighs heavily on his mind.

[Gregorian]

45. Thanks. I appreciate your comments. And I do understand.

And they confirm what I thought all along. But it helps to hear from others. You've all brought me up to speed in a very short period of time. And I"m grateful.

[puebloknot]

28. K&R "Doing the right thing." What a quaint concept, and one...

...that needs to be dug up and paraded before We the People on an hourly basis.

Shameful? Yes, and utterly damning for us as a nation.