Article

2007-01-10 Home Front: WoT

Kennedy plan would block funds for new troops

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-01-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Looks like even Dick "Gulag" Durbin is backtracking from this one.

Moral of the story: Bush isn't Ford.

Posted by JSU 2007-01-10 00:14|| 2007-01-10 00:14|| Front Page Top

#2 No chance you fat idiot. Good time to retire.

Posted by Sneaze Shaiting3550 2007-01-10 00:16|| 2007-01-10 00:16|| Front Page Top

#3 Why God? Why couldn't he gave been the one to die in that car?

Posted by Mike N. 2007-01-10 00:22|| 2007-01-10 00:22|| Front Page Top

#4 Super Ted was screaming so loud his voice failed. Bet his blood pressure was in high 200's.
Teddy is threatening to use War Powers Act to sideline this. A careful read would give him some credibility here. Certainly enough to cause some trouble.

Posted by SpecOp35 2007-01-10 00:33|| 2007-01-10 00:33|| Front Page Top

#5 Presidential power to wage war is black letter constitutional law and the last time I looked it took a constitutional admendment not a puny statute to rescind that power..

The only option Congress has is to cut funds to the war, not an option should the left want to be competitive in 2008.

Posted by badanov 2007-01-10 00:55|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-01-10 00:55|| Front Page Top

#6 Iff IRAN is truly the WORLD-ACKNOWLEDGED [many nations], and not merely US-acknowledged, Leader/Sponsor of International Islamist Terror, then Congress should be voting to raise $$$ to support "regime change" in Iran. NOT "DEM HOUSE WON'T CUT FUNDING ERGO DEM SENATE WILL" post-elex, New Yarn 2007 politix.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-01-10 01:16|| 2007-01-10 01:16|| Front Page Top

#7 I guess he could not get a hint. Oh well.
Have fun Senator :)

Posted by newc">newc 2007-01-10 04:04|| 2007-01-10 04:04|| Front Page Top

#8 Kennedy plan would block funds for new ~~troops~~ Oldsmobiles and bridges.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-01-10 05:17|| 2007-01-10 05:17|| Front Page Top

#9 badanov, SpecOp is right. Of the legislature's 17 enumerated powers, 7 of them give Congress the power to regulate and fund the military. The President has plenary power to conduct foreign affairs, but the major Constitutional role is only as CINC.

The War Powers Act is an additional legislative constraint placed on the executive by Congress dating from the Vietnam era. Only Congress has the power to declare war; the WPA shifts even more power from the President to Congress in any situation where there has been no such formal declaration. Meaning, all of them, since Dec. 8, 1941 was the most recent formal declaration of war.

Personally, I think the WPA violates the separation of powers doctrine and gives the legislature an incentive to abuse its power at the expense of national security. But it's been litigated up the yin-yang and found constitutional by the Supreme Court. I'm actually surprised it's taken the moonbats so long to invoke it.

Posted by exJAG 2007-01-10 05:29|| 2007-01-10 05:29|| Front Page Top

#10 No chance you fat idiot. Good time to retire.

Long ago would have been even better.

Posted by gorb 2007-01-10 05:43|| 2007-01-10 05:43|| Front Page Top

#11 Well, he's finally back in the news. And he beat Kerry to the punch. Maybe he even feelshis life has meaning again.

Posted by Bobby 2007-01-10 06:06|| 2007-01-10 06:06|| Front Page Top

#12 What we've been hearing is the generals don't want more troops. [Please weigh in on this, those of you over there now or recently. Thanks!!] In that case, President Bush is playing a pretty poker bluff on the Democrats by allowing them to publicly refuse to support the war effort, even as the general public are spooked by airplane incidents and reports of major attacks here at home being prevented by amazing intelligence/police work. Even my retired Aunt Ada in Florida has taken to emailing all her friends little articles she finds on Ahmadenijad's nukes and Saudi links to Al Qaeda, so I pointed her to the Apostate site we had some articles from the other day (I don't think her nerves are quite ready for Rantburg's civil, well-reasoned discourse).

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-10 07:09|| 2007-01-10 07:09|| Front Page Top

#13

But it's been litigated up the yin-yang and found constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Wrong.

Posted by JSU 2007-01-10 08:59|| 2007-01-10 08:59|| Front Page Top

#14 "Bar funding" for new troops?
Well, of course he'd be all for that. He's done some of his most historic work in bars.

Posted by tu3031 2007-01-10 09:21|| 2007-01-10 09:21|| Front Page Top

#15 Care to explain, JSU?

Posted by exJAG 2007-01-10 09:42|| 2007-01-10 09:42|| Front Page Top

#16 Kennedy and the Dems are playing right into Bush's hands. He, bush, WILL deploy more troops. If the Dems vote to cut funding Bush will stand their names as congressional leaders who do not support our troops, read not getting reelected. Bush will cut procurement and other programs to support the war and blame every death on the Dems for lack of funds to buy proper life saving equipment. The Dems are comming out of the closet and showing that their retoric is just that and they hold the military in contempt and could care less about us.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2007-01-10 09:48|| 2007-01-10 09:48|| Front Page Top

#17 The Supremes have never ruled on the constitutionality of the (blatantly unconstitutional) WPR; nor would they, as it's the most obvious political question one could think of.

Please provide a cite to the contrary.

Posted by JSU 2007-01-10 09:51|| 2007-01-10 09:51|| Front Page Top

#18 The Dems are playing with political fire here if they try to shut off funding.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-01-10 11:09|| 2007-01-10 11:09|| Front Page Top

#19
I think Ted misses the (or his commie friend's) good ole days of Vietnam's 'Re-Education Centers' and Cambodian Killing Fields.....

I hope one of the thing Bush announces is the relaxation of the Rules of Engagement (i.e. stop the PC bullshit and kill the badguys). I hear Sadr is already arming everyone he can draft in anticipation of being stomped.

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-01-10 11:22|| 2007-01-10 11:22|| Front Page Top

#20 This could get interesting and I can't see a winning scenario for the Donks.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-01-10 11:23|| 2007-01-10 11:23|| Front Page Top

#21 JSU,
You speak wisdom - the WPA has never been challenged, much less had its legality decided. I'd love to see Bush be the one to stare down Congress on that one...

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-10 13:16|| 2007-01-10 13:16|| Front Page Top

#22 Bwaahahahaa! For all the pomp and circumstance surrounding your speech, the best the liberal components of the press can say is He has opposed the war from the beginning and At least hes been consistent. Damn Teddy45 years in public office and your still considered irrelevant. Go get em Tiger!

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-01-10 13:40|| 2007-01-10 13:40|| Front Page Top

#23 JSU and Mike, INS v. Chadha renders the WPA's legislative veto unconstitutional.

Posted by exJAG 2007-01-10 14:16|| 2007-01-10 14:16|| Front Page Top

#24 exJAG, It's my understanding that Congress corrected that. I thought they rewrote another bill that fixes the legislative veto problem by requireing it to go to the President for Veto then come back for the override, just like any other bill. Also, I think it only applied to military engagements without a Declaration of War.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-01-10 14:39|| 2007-01-10 14:39|| Front Page Top

#25 Which invalidates the WPA, regardless of its undecided constitutionality, since there already has been a court decision stating that the authorization for the Iraq War is effectively a declaration of war by Congress.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-01-10 15:50|| 2007-01-10 15:50|| Front Page Top

#26 I don't understand how the funding for troops is calcualted. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me. Reports are saying an increase in 21,500 troops will cost 5.6 Billion. I'm assuming this is the additional funding Kennedy wants to block. Well, where does that number come from. It's not like these are "new" US Army troops. They would be somewhere doing something and we would be paying for it. Does the 5.6 Billion figure calculate only additional "combat pay" and the additional bullets/bombs/supplies etc. I have a feeling it costs several billion just having these guys at home. Whats the real skinny on this?

Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2007-01-10 17:22|| 2007-01-10 17:22|| Front Page Top

#27 tough to separate out the specifics of terh Iraq ops for funds cuts. My guess is Bush will stare down the Donks, who have hate, but no real agenda, unity, or political backbone. War Powers Act IMHO is unconstitutional, and any effort by the Donks to usurp CinC powers or cut funding will reinforce their image (rightly earned) of animosity to those in uniform who defend OUR freedom. Bush is playing chicken with chickens, for a good reason. YMMV

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-01-10 19:07|| 2007-01-10 19:07|| Front Page Top

#28 terh? Jeebus! the... typing too fast and agitated...my bad. PIMF

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-01-10 19:08|| 2007-01-10 19:08|| Front Page Top

00:37 Thaviger Glailing4873
23:54 Broadhead6
23:39 Pappy
23:22 crazyhorse
23:14 Swamp Blondie
23:12 Mike N.
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:05 mojo
23:04 Lanny Ddub
23:02 mojo
22:59 Barbara Skolaut
22:55 Hupomock Claimp8056
22:52 liberalhawk
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:48 liberalhawk
22:46 RD
22:45 Cyber Sarge
22:36 twobyfour
22:36 RD
22:08 smn
22:05 tu3031
21:43 RD
21:42 badanov
21:30 Nimble Spemble