Congress holds the power of the purse...

Democrats in Congress can only refuse to pass this $100 billiion dollar Supplemental Appropriations Bill unless it is funded and
NOT BY MORE DEBT!!!

Howard Dean said that GW Bush was waging hbis War on Terror with a credit card for unborn generations of taxpayers. The National Debt in now $9 trillion dollars. GW Bush's contribution has been $3 trillion dollars. This does not include the annual surplus in Social Security ($150 + Billion a year since 1983). Ronald Reagan asked Alan Greenspan to solve the future funding shortfall. He raised the SocSec tax, which created another multi-trillion dollar slush fund for this Adminstration. No one even guess what our National Debt (Public & Agency Bonds) will be on Jan 21, 2009. I do know that on Jan 21 1981, the day Jimmy Carter turned the White House over to Ronald Reagan, the National Debt was only $930 Billion Dollars.

Democrats should insist on "Pay as you Go" funding. Force him to find the money. That is the issue for Congress. Increase taxes on the wealthy or remove the Social Safety Net for Americans. He is now doing by stealth.

Webb's proposal is really the bare minimum the Congress should consider. It does not, however, give me hope. All the president has to say is that Iran constitutes a threat to the US and this poll-watching gutless Congress will abdicate all responsibility, just as it did with Iraq. The very idea that the US Congress would place the interests of Israel--a known violator of internaltional law and perpetrator of war crimes--above those of the US is mind boggling. Until the Congress can stand up to AIPAC, they'll never be able to protect our interests.

We stand at the crossroads of the most significant foreign-policy decision ever to be made by a US administration. If Cheney & the other criminals in control of the Pentagon strike Iran, it may well prove to be the end of the American experiment; there is no way to estimate how bad things will get if they do, but that it will be horrible for the whole world is beyond reasonable doubt.

And, good as the sentiment of Webb's bill is, nothing will work except a flat prohibition without loopholes--if, indeed, the lawless chickenhawks of the Republikan party will even heed Congress then.

This is a good example of why we should not support DINOs like Hillary Clintstone and Joe Liarman. All they do is take up space which should either be held by a true Democrat or an "out" Republikan. Better that the line be clearly drawn, even if it means a few more years before a true Progressive Congress is elected. Otherwise the DINOs, like the 5th-columnists they are, will continue to rot the Democratic Party from within...

so...since our troops are spread as thin as they are, and with recruitment dwindling as it has been...a war with Iran would more than likely mean another Draft, would it not? well crap...looks like I need to start lookin' for apartments in Mexico. That's gonna ruin my whole summer...

The democrats are just republicans--we have had tweedleduminpower for solong that we have apparently forgotten that his twin, tweedledee, is just as dangerous.

I am 100% for the end of the empire.

Why on earth is there even a discussion about this WITHIN the Democratic Party? For that matter, it amazes me that there is even a debate in Congress about this.

The Founding Fathers plainly gave the power as to whether to start a war to the Congress, not the President. There are several good reasons for this involving some quaint old concepts like Democracy. For anyone to stand up and say the President doesn't need Congressional approval to attack another country is a person who's really standing up and saying they don't believe in Democracy.

The founding fathers viewed both a permanent standing army and any time of war as the greatest possible threats to the freedom and liberty that they had just pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to obtain. So they clearly gave the representatives of the people in the House and the Senate the power to make the decision to start a war. They plainly did not include this in the Commander in Chief powers of the President.

To stand up and say that this does not require Congressional approval is to basically stand up and say that the citizens of this country should not have a say in whether or not we go to war.

There is no immediate threat from Iran. There is no reason we have to act today. This is not a case where we've detected incoming missiles from Iran (which they don't have) and the President has to decide within minutes. Instead, the IAEA says they have no evidence of Iran even having a nuclear weapons program, and both our intelligence service and the intelligence services of other nations all clearly state that Iran is five to ten years away from having a nuclear weapon. And even that doesn't mean they'd have the full package to deliver such a weapon to the US and to threaten the US.

So, this is plainly a case where there is time to discuss and deliberate and try to make the right choice as a nation as to whether to go to war with Iran. That is clearly the role of the Congress in our Republic. If the President tried to launch an attack without an approval from Congress, he should be immediately impeached. And my personal recommendation is that any Senator or Representative that tries to say that Bush doesn't need such an approval should be removed from office as they clearly do not understand their responsibilities under the Constitution. Thus, anyone who's even saying Bush doesn't need such an approval is in violation of their oath of office to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic."

Once again, an article with absolutely no mention of Dennis Kucinich who has a MAJOR PLAN to address the "alleged" Iran
"Imminent Threat". The plan is to file letters of impeachment on Cheney first and then on W.
http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.washingtonpost.com%2Fsleuth%2F2007%2F04%2Farticles_of_impeachment_to_be.html

Also visit www.impeachforpeace.org and let your voice be heard. (I filed an impeachment petition this morning. It takes a few minutes and a notarized signature.)

Kucinich said that impeachment is the only way to stop the attack of Iran. I believe him. the Democrat Wusses are still playing gutless and by W.H. rules as usual.

PLEASE visit www.kucinich.us and learn more about this courageous leader and all his other plans and ideas to help WE THE PEOPLE, restore our standing in the World, and start to put an end to "The Corporate States of America"!!!

Grave assaults on the public interest are being perpetrated in Washington this week by evil gangs of right-wing power/control freaks. Later, the chickens will come home to roost in America and it won't be a pretty sight. The burdens of empire are weighing more heavily by the day on the American people. We can take plenty of low-risk actions. Boycotts and strikes are very low risk because we don't need jobs. Jobs need us.

How much more killing are the Dems willing to stand for from this unholy administration? How many more thousands of body parts scattered about unclaimed can be tolerated? And you want to give Bush yet another blank check to commit more murders in Iran???? For the sake of Israel??????????

What are you -- Monsters????????

Of course, support for Webb's proposal is a no-brainer, despite the fact that a strike against Iran without prior Congressional authorization would be the equivalent of Nixon invading illegally Cambodia. That was one of the articles of impeachment considered by the House Watergate Committee against Tricky Dick by the way (the proposal was later withdrawn).

After passing Webb's provision, the next step for Congress should be repeal of the 2002 AUMF that gave us the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"What if the president decides, at the request of General Petraeus, that we have to take action to take out [an Iranian] base?" Lieberman said yesterday. "I wouldn't want to have to go through a month-long debate in Congress before you could do that."

Wouldn't a month-long debate, when our country isn't under any "imminent" threat, be a more rational approach than another unnecessary pre-emptive strike which will kill many people and perhaps get us into the same situation we're facing in Iraq?

"There is no hand-tying here. We're not taking options off the table," Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith said. "He offered this piece of legislation to restore the proper balance between the executive and legislative branch. This is a bill to empower Congress."

They obviously don't want the responsibility of making decisions with regard to pre-emptive strikes on other countries, among other things. Over the past 50 years, but particularly over the past 6 years, Congress has been more than willing to abrogate its responsibilites and allow the executive branch to take over.

"The reversal quieted some Democrats' concerns that reining in Bush on Iran could endanger Israel's security in the Middle East."

Well, aren't they magnanimous? Let's send more U.S. troops to the middle east to defend Israel while simultaneously sending U.S. jobs to China, India, Inodnesia, Korea and everyhwere else they can think of.

Who does U.S. Congress represent?

A progressive piece of legislation would require the president to abide by the UN Charter which forbids any preventative attacks on Iran. In the case of a looming threat both the US and Iran have a legal right to defend themselves according to Article 51--having given the UNSC notice of such a threat. The only other legal way the US could attack Iran or Iran the US (here or in the region) would be if the UNSC approved the attack. Such a prohibition is already in force though, for Art. 6 (2) of the US Constitution requires that "treaties made" be considered the "supreme law of the land." This idea was reinforced recently by the Supreme Court when Justice Kennedy said that treaties were "binding federal law." What is presumed by the article and by the corporate militarist Democrats (not Kucinich) is that treaties don't matter. The UN Charter as such a treaty doesn't matter. That, essentially, WAR CRIMES ARE GOOD if we do them. Congress would have to withdraw from the UN Charter or amend the Constitution to attack Iran outside of the conditions of the UN Charter. So it should be known that Congress, as described by this article, even if the Webb bill passes, is still in violation of international law for the 2002 authorization of force, which was clearly illegal.

Congress had better do something! Webb's proposal or something stronger is essential. These war-mongering rogues in the Administration have for months been trying to build a case, just as they did before the Iraq invasion, that Iran is now the "crazed monster" of the Middle East, stoppable only by our white-hatted cowboys. I am convinced they, in conspiracy with Israel, plan strikes or other pre-emptive military action designed to neutralize Iran's mythical nuclear capacity and its military potency. As Iraq proved, we absolutely cannot trust statements from the Adminstration about Iran as a danger to the region or to the U.S. If Congress fails to act decisively to rein in Bush, it will be a national calamity for our country and the world.

The Bush-Cheney gang and their associates apparently want to attack Iran, according to credible reporting from people like Seymour Hersh.

Why hasn't Congress moved more strongly to put limits on the Bush-Cheney bunch?

We don't need the expanded and escalated war that the necons and war profiteers seem to want.

A US attack on Iran is something to consider carefully:

"Will Bush, Cheney attack Iran? When and why?"

PopulistAmerica.com
February 2, 2007

http://www.populistamerica.com/will_bush_cheney_attack_iran_when_and_why

- - -

"Military Draft Needed for War With Iran and Syria?"

PopulistAmerica.com
September 28, 2006

http://www.populistamerica.com/military_draft_needed_for_war_with_iran_and_syria

Kucinich or Nader in 08--the Democrats need to lose another presidential election and maybe thier entire party if this is all the better they can do!

I believe that good and reasonable people can be against Impeachment. Note that if the votes in Congress are not there to prevent Bush from unilaterally attacking Iran, there certainly are not enough votes for conviction on Impeachment. And if the votes are there to stop Bush, then there is a limit to how much harm he can do to the country in his remaining time in office. And the longer he remains, the more he discredits his approach to governing, to the economy, and to foreign relations, and the more he harms the Republican Party, which is the more evil of the two major parties.

Furthermore, if Bush were to be successfully Impeached, then the next time a Republican Congress is elected (hopefully never but one cannot count on good fortune), it will be obsessed with finding grounds for Impeachment of a Democratic President. On the other hand, if Bush is not Impeached, that will make it all the more difficult for a Republican-controlled Congress to attempt to Impeach a Democratic President.

Democrats are no great benefit to humanity, but Republicans flirt too often with human extinction or with the virtual enslavement and/or annihilation of 99% of the human population to not appreciate the difference.

So many comments here ask the question "when are the Democrats going to do something," or "when are the Dems going to stand up to AIPAC." We all seem to have forgotten that the American government is now effectively functioning as an arm of the Israeli military, as both houses of the American legislature have been bought and paid for by AIPAC. The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, in their September '06 issue, shows that Democrats in the House and the Senate have received WAY in excess of $2.5 million dollars in campaign contributions from AIPAC. (Interestingly, the Republicans seem to have received only 50 cents for every dollar the Dems received.) As that great Texan said, "you dance with them that brung you." As long as Israel wants Iran in the crosshairs, that's where it'll be.

AIPAC is pulling the strings and the Demo leadership jumps. AIPAC is pushing the U.S. to attack Iran. They and Bush are calculating that the Demo leadership is willing to obey the all-powerful Israeli lobby. I pray that other Demos will refuse to be driven into war again by AIPAC.

general strike general strike general strike and soon soon soon -

how about may day???

"When and why will bush Cheney strike Iran"? Steve Hammons, as soon as our pit bull in the Middle East backyard lobs a nuke at Iran and yells for our help. That's when.

>>The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Washington's most influential pro-Israel lobbying group, held its capital policy conference just after the House removed Iran authorization language from its version of the supplemental. AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr told members there that any legislative attempt to limit U.S. options in Iran would be harmful and signal weakness.

(cont)

Since when did America become a colony of Israel?

"What if the president decides, at the request of General Petraeus, that we have to take action to take out [an Iranian] base?" Lieberman said yesterday. "I wouldn't want to have to go through a month-long debate in Congress before you could do that."

Clue-leth little Lieberman. Why would Petraeus, with our military stretched to the brink, for nor reason at all urge the "president" to decide to "take out an Iranian base"? Did CT really vote Lieberman back in?

"We live in occupied country, misunderstood;
justice will take us millions of intricate moves." - William Stafford

The US Gov presently has personnel deployed in Iran and has for months been in violation of international law. When will the American people require its leaders to abide by the laws it helped create ? When will we hold these law breakers accountable ?

It's been said before and it needs further explanation -- If the Bush Gang attacks Iran that oil supply to the World will be cut off and gasoline prices will rise everywhere, upwards of 5 dollars a gallon here in the USA, which will ruin thousands of small businesses since transporation is their 2nd biggest expense - and that would be the last gasp of the American middle class, and possibly the demise of the USA itself as different regions scrabbled on their own to survive a nutcase President and the economy he and Cheney bankrupted. Wouldn't it make better business sense to impeach both of them now while their is still time?