Posted on 09/22/2007 8:42:37 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
John-boy Edwards wasn't the only silky pony in the Senate.
IMPRESSIVE.
The Bush administration was, back in January, almost alone on this issue. the Wimp-moderates were bailing, and the Democrats were chomping at the bit to shut our efforts down.
The Surge has worked, both in turning around Iraq and in turning around Washington, DC.
Exactly right. While I wish President Bush would see the light on the securing the border he and Cheney have more balls than three fourths of Congress.
I REMIND EVERYONE.
The Democrats do not need 60 votes to stop the war. They need only 40 votes. Any funding bill for the military that does not contain the surrender language they can simply refuse to pass.
We can all talk about the pressure on them if they do, and the stories of them cutting off the military, but if they decide their funding sources will dry up completely to zero otherwise, It Could Happen.
Add to this a growing realization within them that . . . if they approve funding and victory continues to unfold, they are cutting their own throats. Do not lose sight of the reality that victory destroys them. They are faced with, therefore, a situation where they are destroyed if they pass a funding bill, and they lose support from their source of political money if they pass a funding bill. The GOP has to keep pressure on them and keep repeating that if they fail to fund the military, they are killing American soldiers and hope that they believe that political risk is worse than their others.
The self-importance of some of “the honorables” seems to come before the importance of what is best for the country. The implication that Rummy’s “sharp style” would prevent them from doing what is right for the country,and prompt them to go along with the opposition in order to show their displeasure with him is sickening, to say the least. Sad thing is that many people wouldn’t put it past them.
Bump for that!
I only hope Fox News jumps on this too.
They don’t even need 40 votes; if a bill comes to a 59-1 vote, the 59 lose. We recently lost several important measures like the Bolton confirmation when the victors failed to muster even 40 votes. I think their margin of victory over Bolton was negative-twenty-three. We need 61 affirmative votes to pass any legislation. That said, the Pentagon must strategize to continue the war indefinitely without appropriation, shifting the fiscal burden of warfare from the taxpayers to the troops personally.
On the other hand, if he can muster one-third of the House to sustain him, then the President can and indeed should veto any and all appropriations until and unless he first receives an altogether acceptable military appropriation. He may need to assent to certain minimal measures to maintain the most critical non-defense federal spending—Congressional paychecks. Such measures would not impair any mandatory spending, including interest on the federal debt, but it would force all federal employees to contribute to the operation of their agencies without receiving any compensation.
The Congress, however, holds the ultimate trump card: impeachment. If the President cannot command the allegiance of a full third of the Senate or (more likely) of half the House, he will succumb. This acrimonious political combat hopefully will not come to impeachment.
And then there’s the election. If the American people somehow elect a Congress willing to fund the war, the troops can get taxpayer funds beginning on 3 January 2009. But we get a new President on 20 January 2009, and she probably won’t resist surrendering to the enemy of the United States.
(Grinning) Hehehehe!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.