Filed under: No S#*t.

by Kagro X

Via TPM Election Central:

It's official: President Bush will veto any and all measures put forth by Congressional Dems to halt the Iraq War, according to a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The letter also says that the White House will veto any measure that would tie its hands on Iran -- including on military action inside that country. That Bush will veto any such measures was expected, and isn't surprising. Nonetheless, the letter makes it official that Congressional Dems face the daunting prospect of having to muster a veto-proof majority on any Iraq or Iran measures. The little-noticed letter can be read right here.

Is this a "no s#*t" moment because, as TPM notes, it was expected? Well, sure. But I wanted to take a moment to remind you of this:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

I've brought this up before, but let me highlight that again:

President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Not just veto. Defy.

Now, what call did the "administration" have in February to use that kind of language? Veto? Sure. But defy? Really?

Let's be honest. In all likelihood, most Washington players probably didn't take notice of that language, or didn't give it any real credence if they did. After all, that's insane, right? To just defy legislation?

But what do you think the Washington Wise Men would have told you about the prospects of pardoning Scooter Libby? What do you think they would have told you about the prospects of the "administration" defying Congressional subpoenas?

"That'd be crazy," they'd have said, right? "No president would risk that kind of affront to Congress and the American people."

And yet, here we are.

So here's a question: Now that we have been told the president is willing to trample the Constitution and defy legislation that pro-actively withdraws troops from Iraq, what theoretical hurdle stands in the way of his trampling it and defying even passive defunding?

Dick Cheney, whom we now know to have his hands on the actual levers of power in the White House, counts presidential budgetary impoundment powers among those he believes were wrongly usurped by Congress, and therefore still quite operative:

By refusing to issue contracts, Cheney revived a Nixon-era tactic of "impounding" funds -- refusing to spend money for programs that he didn't like. Congress had passed a law in 1974 to ban impoundment. Cheney, who later said he believes the anti-impoundment law unconstitutionally infringes on executive power, ignored it.

Now, granted, we're talking about an enormous amount of money. And it also should be said that Cheney hasn't yet said he believes impounded funds can be spent elsewhere. So this still lives in the realm of speculation.

But given this "administration's" penchant for inventing new legal and constitutional theories as the need arises, can anybody say with confidence that this isn't exactly how they intend to defy any legislative effort -- whether active or passive -- to end the occupation?

This is not an argument against attempting to defund the occupation of Iraq, or any other such operation. But you might consider it a thought exercise for those who insist that defunding answers the question definitively.

With this gang, you always have to ask, "What if it just... doesn't?"

Comments

[P J Evans]

It seems clear enough to me that Bush and Cheney are going to do whatever they want, and keep daring Congress to do anything substantive about it.

Unfortunately, it's also clear that many if not all of the Democrats in Congress haven't yet figured this out. Or maybe they just don't believe it.

I'm beginning to think that the only way out is the pitchforks-and-torches route, simply because it's a straight-through-the-wall exit rather than going out the window or through the door. (We'll need bulletproof vests to pull it off, I think.)

[Slothrop]

These acts of law-breaking defiance will continue until someone takes a baseball bat directly to the head of the OVP. I'm speaking metaphorically, of course.

[radiofreewill]

Looks like the battle lines are drawn on all the fronts:

The War - The President's Perogative
The Leak Case - Armitage did it when he met Woodward
The Wiretapping Case - FISA is for the little people
The USAs - Pleasure of the President means pleasure of the President
Habeus - Gitmo's in the tropics, come on

They've Exerted Privilege over their political empire - are Refusing Subpoenas - and Defying Congress and the People on the War.

What are we going to do about it?

[GulfCoastPirate]

Why are the Democrats waiting to impeach this crowd? I truly don't get it. We're all going to wake up one day with Iran being attacked, martial law being declared (national emergency - whatever), Congress told to leave town and no elections in 2008. The cronies can't afford to give up power because they know they would all end up in jail/court if the Democrats ever took over the White House. The D's are going to wait, wait, wait until it's too late.

JH

[Boo Radley]

Thanks KagroX. Slightly off topic, but Democrats have to require REGIONAL benchmarks from Bush's surge. Bush's invasion has destabilized the entire region. If the Democrats don't hold him accountable now, the GOP will do what they did with the pre-war intelligence. "Hey, you signed off too."

[fired up dem]

This post needs to be sent to the Democratic Congress and the Senators.Something is bound to sink in if they keep getting hit in the face with these postings.

[snowbird42]

Send it to Keith.
What do we do except talk and talk? So what about Giuliani, Lieberman and others they are shiny objects.
What if we no longer have a country?
What do we do then?

[William Ockham]

People have a hard time grasping the administration's view of executive power, not because it's unclear, but because of the radical nature of their power grab. They've put forth a clear, consistent, and coordinated message. Any honest description of it would note its fundamentally authoritarian nature. They've implemented their notions of executive supremacy with a straightforward strategy:

They assert some policy position increasing executive power that is a radical departure from accepted norms. If the legislative or judicial branches oppose them, the administration tries to browbeat them into submission and use its allies in the other branches to complete the power grab. If that doesn't work, they will either move the goalposts to avoid a defeat (like they did with Padilla) or simply ignore limits on their power. They never compromise. They never negotiate in good faith.

[John Lopresti]

WO, The letter reminds me of early TX history. Better to have TX in the union than have a funny shaped southern border with MX. Independent and even inspired folks, those Txans.

[Mimikatz]

The Dems' best weapon is not to pass a budget. As I said in my post below, if McConnell won't allow a vote on any measure with a troop withdrawal in it, fine. Don't pass the damn Defense budget. Remember, 70 f'ing percent of the people don't want this war.

Pass the HHS budget so if Cheney wants to impound money, he can impound Social Security and Medicare funds first. McConnell will be crucified in his own state if he holds that money up--the Red states are the ones that depend most on federal payments. We'll have Grannies with Pitchforks if that happens.

And as for cancelling contracts, they have so perverted the government that most of the contract money goes to Cheney's buds anyway.

The Dems have completely misread 1996. Gingrich lost that battle when he "shut down" government by refusing to pass a budget because Clinton was popular and so were the programs the GOP wanted to cut. Now it is just the opposite. Bush is below freezing in popularity and the public hates him and his war.

If there were ever a time to call their bluff, it is now. You can't wait for the Reichstag fire to get outraged.

[Palli Davis Holubar]

What we have here...ever since Nov 5, 2000...is the failure of imagination. Yes, it can happen here. Democracy can be disappeared.

[N=1]

Until the corporate board room philanthrorobbers perceive a threat to themselves, the status quo holds. But I sense that the media parent corporations are beginning to get nervous, hence some more forthright reporting of the past couple of days.

As the Bush/Cheney dictatorship becomes balder, expect corporations to exert pressure on the Republicans to put the brakes on the Executive branch by joining with the Dems. I think if impeachment comes at all it will come from the Repubs.

The Dems just do not have leadership in times of crisis. They react, rather than lay out a clear objective, send a clear message and take deliberate action toward achieving the goal. They are all about playing nice and negotiating instead of drawing a line in the sand and taking on the challenge head on.

[cboldt]

See also the administration position on H.R.1585 (May 16) and this one on the House-passed H.R.2956, dated 07/12/2007.

Good reference link to index pages = Statements of Administration Policy

With regard to the Defense Authorization bill, the list of "will veto" issues includes modification of the CSRT process, and monkeying with the recently passed (late 2006) habeas corpus provisions of the Military Commissions Act.

[cboldt]

Wrong link at (at least!) one place above. He is the link to indexes ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/index.html

[GulfCoastPirate]

Mr. William Ockham @ 16:42

You are exactly correct. Well said.

JH

[Rayne]

This is Kissinger-esque:

...Kissinger also is quoted as saying that Bush needed to resist pressure to withdraw troops since that would create a momentum for an exit that is less than victory.

[snip]

...Kissinger told Michael Gerson, Bush's former chief speechwriter: "The president can't be talking about troop reductions as a centerpiece."

To make his point, Kissinger gave Gerson a copy of a memo he had written to President Nixon on Sept. 10, 1969.

"Withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public. The more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded," he wrote.

"It will become harder and harder to maintain the morale of those who remain, not to speak of their mothers," he said.

Kissinger also feels that public pressure for withdrawal from Iraq would only encourage the enemy.

Which tells me that 1) Cheney's still pulling the strings, and 2) he's using Dubya's oppositional defiant disorder to get what he wants.

[Xenos]

Bush will not admit it publically, but his paramount aim is to maintain a permanent American presence in Iraq operating out of permanent bases. Thus, any withdrawal from Iraq is, to him, defeat. That is the defeat he is trying to avoid.

Since the Republicans in Congress are allowing it, hang the war on them. This is no longer Bush's war, it is The Republican War (tm). The set it up, they funded it without oversight for four years, they are filibustering any bill that would extend policymaking outside of the Decider.

What is victory for the Democrats? Aside from achieving their policy aims, it is the general recognition that the GOP is a criminal and anti-constitutional enterprise. The subpoenas to the RNC are going to get very interesting.

[Ralph]

Why are the Democrats waiting to impeach this crowd? I truly don't get it. We're all going to wake up one day with Iran being attacked, martial law being declared (national emergency - whatever), Congress told to leave town and no elections in 2008. The cronies can't afford to give up power because they know they would all end up in jail/court if the Democrats ever took over the White House. The D's are going to wait, wait, wait until it's too late. JH

Exactly, and the worst problem with waiting is that, after martial law is declared, it will be too late.

Remember, "Once American boots are on foreign soil, we all unite behind the chief executive"? The same applies in spades to a National Emergency Directive, in mid-October, with elections of course needing to be postponed, but only by one Friedman.

"Oh, he wouldn't actually do that."

[Jodi]

Defy or veto I see them as the same.

Yes some here are correct though about how to stop the war.

Senator Lindsey Graham has said it succinctly and correctly several times.

If the Democrats want to stop the war, then they should vote to stop all funding immediately.

Pretty simple!

[Elsie Alderman]

Only the simple-minded believe it's that simple, Jodi, or that Graham was doing anything except resorting to empty rhetoric. In the first place, there's probably already enough money in the Pentagon pipeline to fuel the war for some time. In the second place, Democrats realize that funds are needed for the actual support of our troops in Iraq, and for their extrication from the mess Bush has them bogged down in. It's not a simple matter to keep Bush from misappropriating any funds approved. In the third, if Congress did cut off funding for the war, as more and more Republicans seem to be moving toward, the Bush crew could always come up with some creative way of raising funds in a pinch - say, a bank heist in Iraq that netted over a quarter of a billion U.S. dollars.

[Jodi]

Elsie,

that is a little silly, don't you think? A bank heist of all things!

Of course there are no secrets and someone in the soldiers that did it would spill the beans, unless you think that Rove, or Cheney themselves might do it. They certainly wouldn't squeal.

If congress stopped the funding the war would grind to a halt real quick, and I don't think that the current administration would dare leave the soldiers over there and challenge the Democrats to leave them there. That would be a political and legal disaster for the Administration.

I am afraid you are just being glib so as to excuse the Democrats for not coming out and doing what they need to do.

Stop funding the war!!

Do that and I would expect my brother home in 3 months or less, so you see I have a real vested interest in having it happen.

[TCinLA]

I have long argued that Bush/Cheney is a revolutionary regime - words do not mean the same to them, rules do not mean the same to them - as they do to the rest of us. It is difficult for Congressional Democrats to understand, to comprehend, that this regime intends to overthrow the existing order. It's like the old Roman Republicans facing the Caesars, like the old European states facing revolutionary France in the 1790s, like German conservatives coming to the realization that when Hitler used the word "conservative" to describe himself, he didn't mean what they thought he meant.

Bush may be down to 26% public approval, but if he does these things, if he does defy the congress, he will rally Das Base - whose disapproval is rooted primarily in their belief he hasn't done enough, rather than that he has done too much.

And most of the rest of the country, who don't want what he has to offer any more than a majority of the Germans wanted what Hitler was proposing, any more than a majority of the Romans wanted what Julius Caesar was proposing, will react in stunned disbelief as they watch the consolidation of power, only coming to believe its reality when it is too late, as it was for the Germans, the Romans, and the old states of Europe who had to face Napoleon.

I hope to hell that events will prove me wrong.

[Taxpayer]

Jodi,
I believe Elsie was talking about a bank robbery that did happen in Iraq, with a lot of U.S. dollars taken. Not to mention the billions of dollars that went unaccounted in the last four years.