DEM Leaders: Congress has historically exercised its power to end war - read these precedents!

[RiverStone]

Over 159 American soldiers have died since the DEMS took over the mantle of leadership on The Hill. When does the anger we have felt toward the BushCo regime's unchecked march into a disastrous war become also directed at DEM leaders? The overt and wimpy gestures of compromise coming from Reid and Pelosi are beginning to stir up frustration from the home crowd.

Knock, knock! Are you listening? Why does our newfound majority power feel rather inept at power brokering; particularly as it applies to the Iraq war? Kudo's to Nancy and Co. for the bills pushed through to help on the home front during the first 100 hours of Congress. Yet the voters most compelling issue last November was ending this immoral and reckless war in Iraq. Why so stymied?

Do we need Russ Feingold to give y'all an assertive lesson in kick ass politics? Or better yet, promote him to Majority Leader in the Senate! Here is some recent history, courtesy of Russ, which exemplifies that WE HAVE THE POWER TO END THE ESCALATION!

Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War
January 30, 2007

<snip>

There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.

In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in South East Asia. The provision read, and I quote:

“None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose.”

More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed legislation including a provision that prohibited funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President made certain assurances.

Our witnesses today are well aware of this history, and I look forward to hearing their analysis of it as they discuss Congress’s power in this area. They are legal scholars, not military or foreign policy experts. We are here to find out from them not what Congress should do, but what Congress can do. Ultimately, it rests with Congress to decide whether to use its constitutional powers to end the war.

The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power. It’s because it doesn’t have the will.

complete statement here:

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/01/20070130.htm

[muntrv]

1. I feel that the Dems would be better off using the power of the purse instead

of drafting a non-binding resolution. Also, the Dems need to demand that Bush increase funding for VA, especially after the Walter Reed Hospital debacle.

[nealmhughes]

2. Actually, that is the "power of the purse." Since we never declared war,

there can't be a treaty establishing an armistice or a peace treaty unless it were a general treaty, and treaties need 2/3 Senate approval and presidental signature but the 2/3 makes a veto pretty moot if each senator stands by their initial vote on a treaty.

Since the BushCo SWAsian Excursion was by enabling act, I reckon Congress able to disenable it!