E.J. DIONNE: Can Democrats stop surge?

Can Democrats stop surge?
Congress has few tools available to stop the commander in chief
E.J. DIONNE
Washington Post Writers Group

WASHINGTON - The shift in power heralded by the Democrats' assumption of control in the House and Senate on Thursday could lead quickly to a direct confrontation with President Bush if he chooses, as many expect, to "surge" additional troops into Iraq.

The surge, which opponents look upon as a soothing label for an outright escalation of an unpopular war, is seen by most Democrats and some Republicans as a direct rebuke to voters whose ballots last November signaled a negative verdict on the Iraq war.

They also argue that the surge cannot work because it proposes a military solution to what is primarily a political problem: the increasingly deadly confrontation between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite communities. The violent reaction to the taunting of Saddam Hussein by Shiite executioners underscored the futility of expecting that additional American troops can repair the damage done by three years of flawed policies.

New forms of pressure

But Democrats will barely have time to celebrate their new congressional authority before confronting a hard fact of the American constitutional system: If Bush wants to continue or expand the Iraq War, Congress has precious few tools available to stop the commander in chief.As a result, Democrats are quietly but urgently seeking new ways of pressuring the president to change course, including the possibility of having Congress reconsider its original authorization of force passed in October 2002.

Even Bush's critics doubt that the most sweeping measure, cutting off funds for the president's policies, could be effective, or has the votes to pass. Yet Bush's opponents will be emboldened if he embarks on a surge, especially if it is not linked to what Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, calls "milestones" for political reconciliation that the Iraqi government will have to reach. Levin, whose views are shared by many Democrats, also insists that any surge should be part of an "overall plan of troop reduction" that would begin "within four to six months."



more...

he was on with franken today and said their hands are tied, in part because of the original IWR

The president controls troop movements, but the Congress can simply allocate only the moneys needed to maintain current troop levels. When somebody at the Pentagon tells KBR, Northrop Drummond, and Bechtel that they're not going to get paid for all the stuff they're ordering, someone in the White House will get the message that the surge is not on.

The reason I'm optimistic that we can stop this idiocy is that the people, finally, are against the war and specifically against this troop surge. I know DUers like screaming "nazi" at Bush all the time, but my money is on democracy and the people getting what they want. When you look at all the conservatives clearing the deck like rats off a sinking ship, it's a sign that the worm has turned.

Only Bush's mentally ill base supports this new mission. Democrats/Independents/Moderates and now even some mainline conservatives oppose this new mission. There is no harm for the Democrats to oppose this new mission and block it by denying funding for it. It's not like they are going to get any votes from the right wing fascists anyways.

What the FUCK are they afraid of? He's going to get us all killed.