Dem Leader: It's Not 'Practical' to Stop War-Funding Vote

Hoyer also said that the troops in harm's way in Iraq need support from Congress.

"I don't personally believe it's a practical alternative not to put a bill on the floor and not to let the House of Representatives work its will on what it wants to do on this issue," Hoyer told Cybercast News Service.

To hell with the will of the people, right Steny? You know, the ones your're supposed to be working for? The ones who voted to give your party a majority, with the unequivocal mandate to end the illegal occupation of Iraq and hold its instigators accountable?

Anybody paying attention (which is more and more people every day) knows all the "support the troops" rhetoric is a total fraud. You're just looking to keep your seat on the war profiteer gravy train.

As culpable as you and your war-loving, blood-soaked democratic colleagues already are, you still have an out. You can force an end to the illegal occupation of Iraq by refusing to continue funding it. Show support for the troops in harm's way by getting them the hell OUT of harm's way.

Then you can work for the impeachment of the bastards who lied to Congress and the American people to launch this horrendous disaster.

But time is running short, Steny. If Bushco leaves office with the occupation still raging, and without being held accountable, you become just another accessory to Bushco's mountain of war crimes.

Your TV is not your friend.
Video Commentary:
"John Conyers Brings On the Deja Vu"

DEMAND IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS NOW:
johnconyersjr@gmail.com / john.conyers@mail.house.gov

When Rep Dennis Kucinich introduced his privileged resolution 799 for Cheney's impeachment on the House Floor, carefully reading each of the 3 articles, and taking near an hour to do so, even with his right hand on the Constitution, Hoyer could easily have been lining up the necessary simple majority yea votes needed to insure impeachment that very afternoon. Even his colleague Republicans, led by Boehner, wanted to debate this issue and vote on that bill that very afternoon.

It certainly would have been very practical to settle this matter that has been nagging at the nation since even before Hoyer started his new day job.

No, that would be too practical, so Hoyer first tries to table the bill, and when that didn't work, he moves to send the bill to Committee, where this bill now sits with no action taken by a democratic leadership promising a new direction for accountability, the truth, and an end to the illegal occupation of Iraq.

Rely on Hoyer, especially, to take the most impractical way to get things undone every time.

It is the responsibility of the United States Congress to decide war policy for this nation.

Is Steny Hoyer saying that the U.S. Congress has authorized our Armed Forces to take part in an open-ended fight against civilians on behalf of the illegitimate foreigner-installed Green Zone Government of Iraq that is overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of Iraqis of all sects?? Making this crucial decision is not only "practical," it is absolutely, fundamentally vital that Congress "work its will" and make it, before committing our troops to urban combat, under our system of government and the rule of law. If the decision of Congress is to end our involvement, there will be no troops in Iraq to "support" because they must instead be brought home to the nation which our Armed Forces were formed and intended to defend.

There is a very "practical" unilateral solution that would cease funding for the current violence in Iraq, and that has the extremely important added benefit of re-asserting the role of Congress in decisions about war and peace, and thus Constitutional rule in this nation, which was outlined by a Constitutional expert to Congress one month ago today:

One alternative to the broad approach of the War Powers Resolution would be patterned on section 106 (b) of Senator Biden's bill. That section would cut off funds for a given use of force if Congress were to adopt a concurrent resolution that contains a finding that -

(1) a use of force abroad has exceeded the 60-day time period;

(2) the President has acted outside the authority to use force that was conferred by Congress; or

(3) a use of force is otherwise conducted in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

Once such a concurrent resolution is adopted, a point of order will lie in each House against any measure that contains budget authority to carry out the use of force in question. That will preclude any further consideration of the measure in question until the budget authority is removed.

This is, in my mind, a clean, simple, and effective way for Congress to employ its ultimate check, the power over the purse, to curb unwanted use of force by the President. It is clearly constitutional in that it relies upon the plenary power of each House to set its own rules of procedure. It can be put in place with a concurrent resolution that cannot be vetoed. If Congress is serious about reclaiming the war power, this might be a good place to start.

The proposed procedure, while novel, is not entirely new. On May 15, 1978, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported a measure (section 502 of S. 3076, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1978)) that would have subjected an unauthorized agreement to a point-of-order procedure that would have cut off funds for the implementation of the agreement in question, but the measure was rejected by the full Senate. (Section 502 incorporated the "Treaty Powers Resolution," S. Res. 24, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1978)). The same measure, sponsored by Senators Clark, Church, Kennedy and Mondale, had been introduced in 1976 as S. Res. 486, 94th, Cong., 2nd Sess. (1976). Hearings on the proposal were held on the measure by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 21 and July 28, 1976. - Professor Michael Glennon, 4/10/08

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/gle041008.htm

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sub_oversight.asp

Professor Glennon also made clear that whatever armed force the U.S. is now employing in Iraq has not been authorized by Congress - an appalling situation which flies in the face of the clear intent of our Constitution and the powers vested in Congress under Article I.

Under Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Harry Reid, Congress has effectively taken the United States Constitution off the table. Do they think they are leaders of the American Chamber of Commerce, or of a representative democracy speaking for the people of this nation? How do they sleep at night? Why don't they care??

[Many thanks to Josiah Ryan and the Cybercast News Service for pointing out to the less-than-forthright Democratic leadership the power Congress holds on our behalf. Please keep holding the mirror up to the Congressional leadership - who seem interested only in leading a political party in order to maintain political power for its own sake, the state and well-being of the nation and Constitutional government itself be damned.]