FACT CHECK: Congress Does Not Have To Fund Escalation In Iraq
FACT CHECK: Congress Does Not Have To Fund Escalation In Iraq
Last night on ABC News, newly elected Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) said she would support funding for 20,000-40,000 more troops in Iraq because President Bush “is the commander in chief. …We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.” Watch it:
Boyda is wrong on the facts. A recent Center for American Progress memo explains how Congress could — and should — prevent Bush from sending more troops into a civil war in Iraq without a clear mission. An excerpt:
Although the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need, it can place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran, came out strongly in opposition to escalation, saying, “We need to listen to the military experts, people like Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Abizaid, that say, ‘Listen, the surge isn’t going to work.’” Another newly elected member, Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC) was more circumspect. Shuler said he didn’t think escalation was “the solution” but would consider it if “that’s what our military leaders said.”
Transcript:
Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?
Boyda: I think we’re going to vote to support what the commander in chief and head of military asks to do. At least, I am certainly going to vote to support it.
Gibson: If he wants the surge, he’ll get it.
Boyda: Yes…. He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.
Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, “We’re voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home.”
Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
109 Responses to “FACT CHECK: Congress Does Not Have To Fund Escalation In Iraq”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
Now we have a Democrat Bushbot.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:13 amPiss-soaked skirt?
January 5th, 2007 at 11:15 amBoyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
First of all, Boyda, we didn’t, thanks.
Second, we’ll remember that snarky little comment when your campaign for reelection rolls around.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:15 amGibson: Didn’t the voters in your district think they were getting someone with a brain?
Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for me.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:18 amIt sounds like Rep Boyda is saying “I support my president, right or wrong.” It looks like we didn’t gain anything when we got this DINO from Kansas!!
January 5th, 2007 at 11:21 amShe’s a n00b. She can be set straight. That’s why we have a Majority Whip.
Thanks to decades of imperial executive propaganda and crappy civics education, way too many Americans think that the President’s power over the military is unitary and absolute.
However, a perusal of the Constitution, especially Article I Section 8, shows that it is Congress, not the President, who determines how the military may operate - and it’s a lot more than the power of the purse.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:22 amBUCK FUSH.
Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
So this bitch will vote FOR escalation in order to throw Shrub even FURTHER under the bus?
Stupid whore.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:24 amDeflecting blame onto the voters after they put you into office is not a good choice of tactics there deary. What you say and what you vote for or against will be big issues in your re-election bid and that’s really not far off.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:24 amNoob from Kansas, that explains it. That bastian of intellectualism.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:25 amShe grew up in a republican home then switched to the Dems. She is just learning how to be a Dem, and doesn’t know any better. I am sure we will get up to speed shortly. Read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Boyda
January 5th, 2007 at 11:28 amThis woman needs to do some reading before she goes on television and make such statements.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:30 amall i can say is to remember that name and remember not to vote for her next time around.
i really hate political leaders without back bone or knowledge of what they can or cannot do. it is her job.
again, she is from kansas and probably voted for god in public schools and that is probably the real reason she supports bush, the continued torture…that’s what god would do..or jesus..right.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:30 amFrom her remarks, it sounds like they have spent too much time on Creationism in the Kansas schools systems and not enough on Civics 101.
WHERE do they find these people????
January 5th, 2007 at 11:31 amDoes anyone from Kansas even post here? I hear Lawrence Kansas is progressive. These people are the lily white inbread types in the bread basket.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:32 amIs she talking about the Supreme Court voting for Bush the first time around?
January 5th, 2007 at 11:32 amOr JebCo supressing thousands and thousands of votes in Florida in 2000?
Gibson: But the polls would indicate, and indeed, so many voters when they came out of the ballot box, said, “We’re voting because we want something done about the war and we want the troops home.â€
Boyda: They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.
Newsflash Boydababe… We’re talking about the 2006 election, not one that happened two years ago. You were elected on the premise that something needed to be done to get the folks home from Iraq.
What’s the matter with Kansas?
January 5th, 2007 at 11:32 amI can understand supporting an escalation if the generals ask for it and insist it would be successfull. But they’re not. So why are so many Dems seemingly in favor of it? I like Murtha on this issue. He’ll hold hearings on it but it seems doubtful there’s really any way to convince him it’s a good idea.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:34 amUm, isn’t Heath Shuler a Democrat?
January 5th, 2007 at 11:38 amForTruth,
January 5th, 2007 at 11:38 amOf course Lawrence is progressive, it’s a college/party town. Fun, but bitter cold in the winter…
Another newly elected member, Rep. Health Shuler (R-NC) was more circumspect. Shuler said he didn’t think escalation was “the solution†but would consider it if “that’s what our military leaders said.â€
Heath Shuler is a Democrat.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:39 amRep. Health Shuler is a D, not an R
January 5th, 2007 at 11:39 amAlthough the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need...
Two key points…
#1) The key words are should not. Who the heck says we “should not”?? BS. I say should. No, I take that back. I say DEFINITELY SHOULD.
#2) More key words…”already” and “need”. That money can be used to bring the troops home. So then they won’t “already need” it for other purposes…such as staying in Iraq. More manipulation by using carefully chosen words.
How stupid do they think we are? Sounds like they’re trying to pacify us, the crowd demanding all the troops come home now. Trying to make us believe OUR position isn’t possible. Tring to convince us that an escalation is open to debate but the troops leaving isn’t a consideration. Don’t buy it. Remember what Dennis Kucinich said:
KUCINICH: Someone has to rally the American people, to let them know that the money is there right now to bring our troops home. Democrats were put in power in November to chart a new direction in Iraq. It’s inconceivable that having been given the constitutional responsibility to guide the fortunes of America in a new direction, that Democratic leaders would respond by supporting the administration’s call for up to $160 billion in new funding for the war in Iraq.
For me this is a call of conscience to stand up and speak out about what’s going on—to let the American people know that the money is there to bring our troops home now, that we need to begin now to take a new direction in Iraq, and that to pass a supplemental in the spring for another $160 billion would keep the war going until the end of George Bush’s term. Someone needs to stand up and speak out, and I decided it was my responsibility as the person who has been consistently opposed to this war since its inception, who has been a leader in challenging this thinking that led to war, that I would stand up and rally Democrats to change the course that the party has embarked on with respect to continued funding of the war.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:39 amAre there many other Congress members who were newly elected and think like Boyda ? I thought this coming Congress will bring a change.With many like Boyda..it does not look promising.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:43 amShe even looks like Lieberman.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:44 amIt’s a shame this issue is always framed as “fund what the president wants, or abandon the troops”. Congress can fund the troops and specify what the funds may be used for.
For example, it can specify that all its funds must be directed towards an orderly withdrawal, and then break it down into specifics. The President can veto that spending bill, but then HE is the one cutting the money off to the troops, or he can sign it. If he signs it, and then directs the money contrary to Congressional mandate, than he’s a felon.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:46 amUgh. newbie sit down. Take a couple of weeks to figure out what the hell is going on before you open your yap!
January 5th, 2007 at 11:48 amAhh, Lawrence is a college town, a spot of brain activity in a piss-soaked land. I just love using that piss-soaked line Zooey.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:49 amRep. Boyda, please acquaint yourself with Rep. Murtha.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:50 amBoyda…you’re not in Kansas anymore.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:01 pmI thought next FY’s military appropriations for Iraq had already been passed; in fact, the military budget was about the only budget item passed.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:02 pmI just love using that piss-soaked line Zooey.
Comment by ForTruth
I’m gonna start charging — you use it more than I do!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pm#29 - Good one!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:07 pmI thought next FY’s military appropriations for Iraq had already been passed; in fact, the military budget was about the only budget item passed.
Comment by cavjam
It was passed in June 06 for the fiscal year of ‘07. So all this talk by some of the new Congress to stop the war in the first 100 hours is just pure bunk. The money is there for them to continue the war. What can be stopped is the escalation through specific wording and further appropriations as they come.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:10 pmBuck Foyda.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:11 pmI read somewhere that the most of the Democrats newly elected to Congress are much more moderate AND they are just the Democrat side of the War Party. UGH!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:14 pmMaybe Murtha can teach her a few lessons about Congressional responsibility for federal spending, particularly in regard to pouring money and troops down a black hole, before the time comes for her to cast her vote.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:14 pmI see a “back rub” in this woman’s future…
January 5th, 2007 at 12:14 pm“They should have thought about that before they voted for President Bush not once, but twice.”
This statement is retarded on so many levels that I have to conclude that Boyda is actually a stupid person.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:27 pmCongress can and should go farther. They should attach a provision in any Iraq military funding bill that specifies no funds may be used for ground or combat operations in Iraq except for force protection and withdrawal.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pm[…] Nancy Boyda (D-KS) supports the dribble: Gibson: Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq? […]
January 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pmBoyda is actually a stupid person.
Comment by VerbalKint
Sure doesn’t help the case against Kansas.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pmSo let’s consider the number of people who voted for Bush, not just once, but twice, to meet Boyda’s criterion of whom she represents in Congress. This group clearly constitutes a minority of actual voters, and at most 25% of eligible voters. Moreover, the last time anyone voted for Bush was over two years ago, and we can be sure that there is a lot of buyer’s remorse there. Boyda is saying that she intends to give Bush a free ride on Iraq for the rest of his term, no matter what anyone else believes. So she is going to support the 11% who support escalating.
Boyda is unfit to serve in Congress.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:36 pmEvery person who is sworn in as a member of congress (or president) should be forced to take a test in government and get a passing grade. If they don’t pass they should be ejected. Much like “No Child Left Behind.”
January 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pmTracy -
FACT - no WMD’s. FACT - Bushco knew there were no WMD’s. FACT - Buscho fixed intelligence. FACT - Iraq war was planned long before 911. FACT - Iraq war is about oil.
FACT- Bush is a liar, a theif, a murderer and a traitor!!!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pmAnyone have a link to write letters to this nincompoop?
I checked her website and she was marinating and draping herself in the “we need a change in Congress” rhetoric and saying that the Congress has failed to insist that the President articulate a timetable for withdrawal. Now, she’s congress, it’s the second day, and she’s already contradicted her campaign stance, throwing up her hands and saying ‘I’ll fund your open-ended escalation which is 180 degrees from my stated position of firm timetable for withdrawal.’
She’s on the shit list.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pmCan’t Democrats stop Republicans from infiltrating their ranks?! Perhaps, Democrats should start disguising themselves as Republicans and try to work from within like Republicans are doing with Democrats?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pmDemocrats probably fail since they aren’t good at lying everytime you speak.
Clinton couldn’t do it.
Posted here and elsewhere, primarily because I think people are overreacting to Nancy’s comments and misinterpreting her position. I’m offering this to provide some context for Nancy’s comments for those of you who don’t know her.
FWIW, I know Nancy personally. She is certainly no rube and is definitely no Lieberman. I haven’t spoken with her for many months, so I don’t have any recent information. This post is based on my personal conjecture.
First, know that Nancy organized anti-war protests in Kansas City before her first campaign in ‘04. That should tell you a little about Nancy’s personal philosophy.
Second, understand that Nancy’s district includes Fort Leavenworth, a major military base. To stay elected in this district, she has to be supportive of the military. This is why she asked for and was appointed to the Armed Services Committee. KS-02 was a darkhorse pick-up for us and will certainly be a Republican targeted seat in the next cycle.
Third, keep in mind that Bush has, in a very unsubtle manner, threatened to tar the Democrats in Congress with the consequences of his mistakes in Iraq. In essence, Bush is trying to set the Democrats up for the Knife-in-the-Back meme.
Put the pieces together, and I read Nancy’s comments as the Democrats in Congress saying that they will not accept the blame for Bush’s failure in Iraq. I think Nancy is taking a position that she has been counseled to take by Democratic leadership. While her last comment about people thinking about the consequences before electing Bush twice was not artful, it is mostly accurate.
At the end of the day, consitutionally, the only one who can bring the troops home is the Commander in Chief. Sure, Congress can make his life miserable until he does so, and as ThinkProgress points out, they can put some restraints on him, but is cutting funding for the war really a good idea? Do we really want to be responsible for cutting off funding for body armor for the troops, for example?
Nancy is not a bitch. She’s not stupid, and she’s not a liar (as some online have called her). She’s a smart, capable politician who is going to be a good representative for her district. She’s liberal in some, but not all respects.
And one final note, can we do away with the inevitable and unoriginal Kansas jokes, please.? Living here and dealing with the crazies is bad enough. I could do without the additional shit heaped on my state by my fellow progressives and Democrats.
The situation here s a lot more nuanced than you might think. We have a Democratic governor and half of our Congresspeople are now Democrats. We’ve also regained control of the state board of education and the Attorney General’s office from the conservatives. There is progress in Kansas.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pmI hope she gets some loving feedback from her constituents on these comments. She best not be trading her vote for more face time on the tube….it’ll be a short career if she’s doing that.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmWell, it’s time to do a Robert Byrd and whip out our pocket Constitutions. Usual disclaimer, I am not a Constitutional scholar nor do I pretend to be one on Fox News Channel. I am but a humble citizen interested in the law who can read. So here goes. Under the powers for Congress we have:
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Among other things, this says clearly that it’s up to the Congress to decide who gets tax cuts, not the president.
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
This looks important to me because it clearly states that it is the Congress, not the president, who decides how “alien enemy combatants”, or anyone else captured on land or sea, can be handled. And if they say they must be handled in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, then it is not up to the president to decide for whom that applies.
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
This is where it says that it is up to the Congress to decide how many troops we have, not the president. This clause has always made me wonder how my contract to enlist for four years was legal, if it sounds like they couldn’t be bound to pay me for more than two. But I’m sure there’s some loophole they invented to get around this. Water under the bridge, as they say.
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Again, Congress has this authority, not the president. So the president can’t decide that it’s okay for military people to use torture.
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The Congress, not the president, decides the circumstances under which our own military can be used against us.
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Sounds to me like troop levels are the decision of the Congress, not the president. He can say he wants more troops, but they have the constitutional right to say no. This is what the new Representatives need to learn. They have more power than they think, including the power to tell the president to go scratch hiimself.
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
And this suggests to me that signing statements, especially where the president says he will do the opposite of what the Congress allowed, have no authority whatsoever over the laws that Congress has passed. Unless the Congress writes into the law that the president can decide how he will interpret it, he must interpret it the way the Congress intended for it to be interpreted. Otherwise he is indistinguishable from a dictator.
Of course, being a simple non-lawyer, I could be wrong. To paraphrase Arthur Dent, perhaps these words have other definitions with which I was previously unfamiliar.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pmThere is progress in Kansas.
Comment by markinkc
Thanks for the insight, and we’re very pleased to hear that there is progress in Kansas. Some of us were getting concerned for a time there, but I’m glad to see things moving in the proper direction. Good luck in future elections in Jackson County.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pmbut is cutting funding for the war really a good idea? Do we really want to be responsible for cutting off funding for body armor for the troops, for example?
Congress can be a lot more specific than simply cutting funding. It can also direct how those funds may be used. Talk like this minimizes Congress’ considerable power by gross oversimplification.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pmNancy is not a bitch. She’s not stupid, and she’s not a liar (as some online have called her). She’s a smart, capable politician who is going to be a good representative for her district. She’s liberal in some, but not all respects. Comment by markinkc
I respect your position on her and your loyalty but if she is to represent your district in the US Congress, she better read up on her roles and responsibilities before she does any further public speaking.
And Good Luck with your Kansas situation, we had a similar purge in Colorado but still have a ways to go, as we have Marilyn Manson Musgrave and Tommy “Miami-is-a-third-world” Tancredo still in office.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pmDon’t confuse Tracy with the facts.
She hasn’t come out and said it, but she feels Iraq had WMD’s, but moved them, so we couldn’t find them.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmWhile her last comment about people thinking about the consequences before electing Bush twice was not artful, it is mostly accurate.
Comment by markinkc — January 5, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Sorry, Mark, no it’s not. Do you really believe that more than a couple of conservative Democratics voted for Bush not once, but twice? Even in Kansas? The people who voted for Ms. Boyda almost certainly did NOT vote for Bush, or this war.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmWhile her last comment about people thinking about the consequences before electing Bush twice was not artful, it is mostly accurate.
Comment by markinkc — January 5, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Spirited defense, but your twisted speculation about Boyda engaging in some kind of lame Machiavellian maneuvering sounds ridiculous. You are merely repeating and amplifying Boyda’s central fallacy, that she represents Bush voters from 2000 and 2004, not her own constituents from 2006.
There was an election in November, 2006. Wake up and start listening. Boyda wasn’t elected to Congress to simply rubber stamp and green light whatever the President wants.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pmWhat’d I miss from Tracy? Was it deleted, ’cause I just went through all of the comments twice, and I didn’t see anything from her?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmJane,
That was my “preemtive” Tracy strike, in case she comes over to this thread.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmWhat’d I miss from Tracy? Was it deleted, ’cause I just went through all of the comments twice, and I didn’t see anything from her?
Comment by JaneESchneider
It’s on a different thread, Jane.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI see Kansans have outdone themselves…
…they’ve elected Dorothy from “The Wizard of Oz”…
…to Congress…
…sheesh!
January 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pmFine: place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that Bush “must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.”
He’ll just issue another damned SIGNING STATEMENT!
January 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pmOh Great! “place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill” forces Bush to “provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.”
He’ll just issue another SIGNING STATEMENT and avoid the funding bill language as he pleases.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pmAlthough the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need
Why should they not refuse to fund the troops’ stay in Iraq? Or, more fundamentally, why is it that the troops need those funds? Why would the troops need to stay in Iraq?
It is clear Iraqis are not fond of foreign soldiers on their soil. It is their country, and it is their call. Lest we forget, Iraq is supposed to be a sovereign nation; its leaders have already asked for a timetable for withdrawal. From their standpoint, the need for American troops is rather limited.
As long as we all buy into the Bush administration’s meme that the troops are needed, the occupation will continue. As long as we let The Decider decide how long, and how many of them are needed, Iraq will remain an occupied nation.
The funding -if Democrats are to grant it- should be contingent upon an Iraqi agreement to extend the American presence in their country. I am tired of everyone talking about Iraq as if the opinion of its citizens doesn’t matter.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmThanks For Truth, Zooey, I thought that I was going crazy or blind or something!
January 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pmI read somewhere in the last couple days that the Dems really ‘can’t stop’ the surge by using their power of the purse. Even if they write or amend the supplemental spending bill to disallow any money going for more troops in Iraq, the new defense budget bill that was passed last fall would more than suffice if Bush insists on having it his way. It would mean a little belt tightening in DOD but that’s about it.
Boyda’s comment is ridiculous of course for obvious reasons. She needs to have a long talk with Nancy.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pmThanks For Truth, Zooey, I thought that I was going crazy or blind or something!
Comment by JaneESchneider
Wayne said your vision was okay…
January 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#65 - Smartass! ;-D (And honestly, my vision sucks!)
January 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pmSmartass! ;-D (And honestly, my vision sucks!)
Comment by JaneESchneider
Better than dumbass!
My vision sucks, too. All the finest women are blind as bats. :)
January 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pmAll the finest women are blind as bats. :)
Comment by Zooey
No wonder you all think I’m good looking! Now I understand. ;-)
January 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pmDon’t know if a similar comment has already been made, but Rep. Boyda needs to read the Constitution…you know, the one she was sworn in yesterday to protect, defend and uphold? God, I hope this isn’t an example of the quality of the new Dems!!
January 5th, 2007 at 2:42 pmDo you think incoming Reps should have a quiz on the Constitution before they get the job? Like a driver license test? Not real hard, just the fundamentals.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmAnd the native Americans were replaced by these lily white idiots, like Boyda. Guess she voted for Bush… twice.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pmDo you think incoming Reps should have a quiz on the Constitution before they get the job? Like a driver license test? Not real hard, just the fundamentals.
Comment by ForTruth
They would have to take it when they file their paperwork to run for office. While I agree it should be a requirement, it would mean applying a new standard for eligibility to Congress. And it would get struck down by the Supremes. The Constitution would have to be amended to include the requirement that the representatives and Senators pass a standardized test on the Constitution before being elected. (You don’t want to say “take office” because they would wait until they won the election to take the test. And if they then failed, what would we do?)
To tell you the truth, I think all citizens should have to pass a test on the Constitution before registering to vote. This way, only voters who understand the Constitution will be choosing their representation. While they can’t pass a law making Members of Congress take this test, they can require citizens to pass one. The only reason I don’t push for something like this is because the immediate effect would be to deny people a right to vote, and I prefer increasing the voter rolls, not depleting them. So we’ll just have to educate them ourselves.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:03 pmNepeta…the new defense budget bill that was passed last fall would more than suffice if Bush insists on having it his way. It would mean a little belt tightening in DOD but that’s about it..
I’m afraid it’s true. Congressman Barney Franks made a similar statement to this effect on Keith Olberman the other evening. Franks stated that the DOD has sufficient funding to pay for more troops even if Congress doesn’t approve additional monies.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pm…I think all citizens should have to pass a test on the Constitution before registering to vote.
Yeah, Wayne, my husband and I have been saying this very same thing for years.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pmExcellent Idea Wayne.
The requirement to pass a test on our Consitution before registering to vote. We won’t see that anytime soon. It’s against the corporate interests, who back the politicians.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:14 pmThe requirement to pass a test on our Consitution before registering to vote.
Comment by ForTruth — January 5, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
This idea smacks of literacy test, and I believe it is also against the Voting Rights Act.
I don’t think this is about corporate interests, but in the defence of all adult citizens’ right to vote.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pmWho the hell voted for this woman?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pmall i can say is to remember that name and remember not to vote for her next time around.
Comment by beijair
i donated money to various candidates around the country for the November elections… this woman is on my list of remember tos…. remember to NOT give any money to this woman in ‘08. MoveOn.org and the DNC etc should not bother wasting their money sending me any mail asking for money for this “candidate in need” …
January 5th, 2007 at 4:02 pmshe has to be supportive of the military
Comment by markinkc
Exactly how do you define being support of the military? Sending them into ever battle around the world you can find just so they got something to do? Dont you have to use reason to judge WHEN you fight? If the fight is immoral do you just keep on doing it to “support the troops”? WTF is that? The Bush definition of “support the troops”? NEVER sending them into another Hamburger Hill is supporting the troops. NEVER sending them to war in because of a lie is supporting the troops. Pulling them out after finding out that everything was a lie is supporting the troops. Jesus what are we a militarized spartan society?
January 5th, 2007 at 4:06 pmWith “Democrats” like this……….
January 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm“Who needs Republicans
Can somebody say RECALL
Comment by Gregor Samsa
I’m not against anyone legally voting, I just wish we could somehow force them to understand what they’re voting on, first! Too many decisions have been made by ill-informed people in this country for anyone to defend the practice of “Stupid Voting”. I mean, why else did we get some of the “real winners” we’ve gotten lately (guys like DeLay, Goode, and the others)? Because of ill-informed voters.
I’m not in favor of denying people the right to vote; I just want them to be using their brains when they do it. And I also think they should understand some basic facts about the Constitution that gives them that right to vote before they start exercising it. That’s all.
(And I admit it - I worry because stupid people vastly outnumber intelligent people in this country.)
January 5th, 2007 at 4:25 pmI can see I’m vastly outnumbered in my opinions about Nancy, so one more post as Nancy’s self-appointed defender, and I’ll let it drop.
Comment by VerbalKlint:
“You are merely repeating and amplifying Boyda’s central fallacy, that she represents Bush voters from 2000 and 2004, not her own constituents from 2006.”
I don’t think that’s what Nancy is saying at all. I read her as meaning that we won’t get a change in war policy until we get a change in the White House.
Look, I understand why people are pissed off about Nancy’s comments, but I am really taken aback at the rush to judgment here. On the basis of this one segment, people in this thread have called Nancy:
a bushbot
a piss-soaked skirt
stupid
a bitch
a nincompoop
It’d be nice if we weren’t so ready to throw one of our newly elected Congresspeople under bus quite so quickly. This is her first interview on her first day in office. Can’t we give her a little more time, maybe even wait to see how she votes on things before people start calling for her to be thrown out?
January 5th, 2007 at 4:35 pmWith both Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth in her district, it doesn’t take too long to figure out the source of her ‘reasoning’. Manhattan and Junction City, Kansas are getting a gigantic economic shot in the arm as the Pentagon moves the HQ of the 1st Infantry back to Fort Riley. Housing developers will be filling her coffers.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:41 pmSexist hateful comment #1: “So this bitch will vote FOR escalation…”
Sexist hateful comment #2: Stupid whore.” -=DieNowForPeace
YOU are the problem, DieNow, you hateful imbecile.
This Congresswoman is ONE vote in 435. To scald her over reasonable comments like these, especially given that she is from Kansas (and apparently anti-Iraq invasion and anti-Bush) is perhaps reasonable, but to attack her for being a woman, one day after Pelosi broke the marble ceiling just shows what a vile little worm you are, DieNow.
Leftists are fond of claiming that the Vietnam war was ended by Congress. AND THAT IS HILARIOUS. A more correct view is that Congress closed the door after the entire debacle was over.
We may be in a similar position — though I doubt it. Bushco has commited a great range of crimes, and absent justice on those crimes, savaging the Dem party for minor comments in freshmen is the height of leftist insanity. Congratulations.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pm“To tell you the truth, I think all citizens should have to pass a test on the Constitution before registering to vote.” –Wayne A. Schneider
Great! You support disenfranchizing Americans!
Time for you to get in your time machine and go back to Selma, Alabama and join up with Bull Conner, see if you can beat some blacks out of their ignorant votes.
Leftists like to confuse parchment barriers from reality — especially out of context — but the fact is that our democracy is mainly an IDEAL, not a binding law, as any study of history will show you.
During wars, even and especially illegal wars, the war powers held by the Executive far exceed the standard in the Constitution, as a historical fact. While the Congress has tried to confine the Executive, such as in 1973’s War Powers Act, look how well that worked to stop a runaway Executive thirty years later!
Fact is, you have to have a legal Executive in the first place, and we don’t (currently). You have to have an Executive that is not committing treason with its every breath. The Constitution is based on three branches of gov’t, and when the SCOTUS betrayed the country in 2000, we were on our way. And where is the justice system gone? Haven’t they read the Constitution???
The Constitution won’t stop the military-industrial complex. And didn’t. A Constitution won’t stop coups, as we have seen. And a Congress won’t stop an enemy like Bushco, because the impeachment power has never worked, and if the media betray the country, we are all up shit’s creek, as we have seen. Now we celebrate the RESTORING the Congress in order to even –have– a functioning Constitution again.
Controlling the use of the US military is a bit harder than pointing at the Constitution and demanding that mommy stop trillion dollar companies from pursuing profit, hegemony, and bloodlust.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:01 pmMemo to Rep. Shuler:
Do not let your political career take the same path as your pro football career did - ending in a very short period of time!
The military does what the civilian government leadership tells them, not the other way around!
Got it?
January 5th, 2007 at 6:08 pmTo tell you the truth, I think all citizens should have to pass a test on the Constitution before registering to vote. This way, only voters who understand the Constitution will be choosing their representation. While they can’t pass a law making Members of Congress take this test, they can require citizens to pass one. The only reason I don’t push for something like this is because the immediate effect would be to deny people a right to vote, and I prefer increasing the voter rolls, not depleting them. So we’ll just have to educate them ourselves.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Paul in LA,
This was the entire paragraph from which you excerpted that line. Note the last two lines. Perhaps I should have said that it would be wonderful if it was expected of everyone that they understood the constitution before voting, but I guess letting stupid people vote is part of the game that we have to play. Instead I phrased it as a belief in a requirement. My mistake. I’m no Bull Connor.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:23 pmI’m not in favor of denying people the right to vote; I just want them to be using their brains when they do it.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — January 5, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
I understand and share your sentiment, but the solution is not a literacy test -or whatever else you choose to call the quiz.
The solution to have a healthy democracy and an informed citizenry is to demand the media to do their job; which is to serve as a watchdog and provide the public with objective, accurate information. Objective and truthful, not “fair and balanced”.
The only way citizens will be aware of what they’re voting for -or against- is if they have enough information to form an educated opinion. Alas, with Fox et al looking after their collective rear ends rather than the collective good, I am not holding my breath.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:25 pmOkay, okay, fine. No competency tests to be allowed to vote. Sure. That’ll work out just fine.
Of course I’m not going to push for testing, but I just wish our country’s future wasn’t in the hands of so many ill-informed people! I mean, being a citizen in a democracy carries certain responsibilities, doesn’t it? So why can’t one of those responsibilities be to know what the hell you’re voting on?
Okay. I will no longer publicly advocate that position. I hope this satisfies everyone. But don’t blame me when Spongebob Squarepants gets elected president.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:35 pmDidn’t meant to take your comments out of context, Wayne. Mostly I was reacting to the sexist trashing of this Rep. for a reasonable (if not accurate) point of view, and my anger spilled over.
Most, 99.9999% of the voting decisions voters make have NOTHING to do with knowledge of the Constitution.
What we need is a law requiring a good faith effort by news media — including cable and satellite services — to report the truth. Lack of knowledge is one thing — false knowledge supplied by propaganda is another entirely.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:48 pm[…] FACT CHECK: Congress Does Not Have To Fund Escalation In Iraq Think Progress / January 5, 2007 […]
January 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pmGeez, you all want to eat your D-young, in the same way Repub right wingers have been eating theirs.
As others have suggested, Boyda is a newbie, who represents a very republican district. Do you all want the likes of a Jim Ryun (R-KS) back? If you aren’t tolerant enough for some mod-D’s, I’m afraid you have to give the keys to the Congress back to the R’s.
January 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pmA Bushbot in democrats clothing. Find a REAL democrat to run against her next time.
January 5th, 2007 at 8:51 pmI called Boyda’s office today and talked to them. Here’s the pertinent portion of the conversation I had:
The 110th Congress doesn’t get to vote on whether or not Bush decides to send more troops to Iraq. He’ll call for a surge of troops as commander-in-chief because it’s an Executive policy decision.
What the 110th Congress does get to vote on is funding the war. More importantly, what the 110th Congress can also do is oversight.
Boyda’s office also told me that Ike Skelton (D-MO), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has announced (or will announce) that Gates will be called in front of the Committee and asked to justify the surge in troop levels.
***
Here’s my take, Nancy’s not real savvy in front of the cameras right now. After speaking with her office, I think what she meant to convey was encapsulated by her when she said, He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision. In otherwords, Bush, as commander-in-chief, decides to deploy troops and Congress can’t stop him. What Congress can do is exercise its appropriations and oversight functions. So, if Bush does send the troops she will vote to fund them.
Look at the question that Gibson asked her: would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq? He did not ask her if she was in favor of the surge. Instead, basically he was asking her to assume there were an additional 20-40K troops on the ground in Iraq and if she would vote to appropriate money to support them. If she had said, “no” than people would be jumping on her for not supporting the troops. It was a question like “are you still beating your wife.”
Additionally, what Nancy said, is in line with what the other two said in Gibson’s interview. According to the thinkprogress website,
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran, came out strongly in opposition to escalation, saying, “We need to listen to the military experts, people like Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Abizaid, that say, ‘Listen, the surge isn’t going to work.’†Another newly elected member, Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC) was more circumspect. Shuler said he didn’t think escalation was “the solution†but would consider it if “that’s what our military leaders said.â€
From their answers, I don’t think they were asked the same question Nancy was, i.e., Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?. Murphy’s answer sounds like it is in response to a direct question about whether the surge is necessary. Shuler’s answer sounds like it is in response to a question about whether the surge is a solution to the problems in Iraq and he doesn’t dismiss it. Then, it appears it is Boyda’s turn. From what I can tell there is a progression in Gibson’s line of questioning. Gibson has gone from “is the surge necessary” with Murphy to assuming the surge has taken place and asks Nancy if she would fund them. What’s she going to say? No, let them starve? get blown to bits?
When Gibson asks her whether Bush will get a troop surge if he wants it, she correctly points out that he’s the commander-in-chief. He has the ability to call up troops, not Congress. Congress can provide oversight. Remember that Nancy is now a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Perhaps we should reserve finally judgment on whether we’ve been sold down the river. I want to see how Nancy handles Gates when he testifies in front of the Armed Services Committee.
Oh yeah, as for that last bit about the voting in 2000 and 2004, I think she’s saying that Bush was s/elected as commander-in-chief of our military, and basically, the American people are getting what they voted for. It wasn’t really politic of her but I don’t think it has the meaning that is being advocated.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:19 pmIt’s all I can do to hold back my primal urge to bash her face into the pavement until it is red spongy pulpy mess.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:32 pmThe requirement to pass a test on our Consitution before registering to vote. We won’t see that anytime soon. It’s against the corporate interests, who back the politicians.
Comment by ForTruth — January 5, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
The Constitution is included in 8th Grade Content Standards. For the past two years, my students have averaged over 90% on the school’s Constitution Test. They’ll learn it, if you let them understand why it’s important they know it.
Some of my students are legal immigrants. It’s a hellova note to have to tell them that they just lost the protections of the Constitution, thanks to the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:49 amIt’d be nice if we weren’t so ready to throw one of our newly elected Congresspeople (Boyda) under bus quite so quickly. This is her first interview on her first day in office. Can’t we give her a little more time, maybe even wait to see how she votes on things before people start calling for her to be thrown out?
Comment by markinkc
I have been interested in reading your comments, particularly since they come from someone who knows this Congresswomen personally. I agree with you that she, as well as Heath Shuler, shouldn’t be dumped on at such an early stage. And, in any case, they are certainly preferrable to the Republicans they replaced. (Ex-Rep. Charles Taylor of North Carolina was on an environmentalist group’s “dirty dozen” list.)
January 6th, 2007 at 1:10 amHOW IN THE HELL DO YOU GET ALL THE WAY TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…..AND STILL…NOT KNOW…ANYTHING….ABOUT THE FRIGGING…CONSTITUTION?
….This Women is in the FRIGGING CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SHE …..STILL….DOESNT…KNOW…JACK..ABOUT…THE FRIGGING…CONSTITUTION!
What has happened to this country?
January 6th, 2007 at 1:58 amTony she’s from Kansas, need I say more?
January 6th, 2007 at 2:18 amRe#44 Jules
We SANE people should repeat those same 4 FACTS whenever the conversation turns to “Bush”.
We must keep it simple, keep it direct, and keep it in the public mind to counteract the spin that is trying to make us forget those 4 FACTS!
January 6th, 2007 at 6:58 amAccording to Bush under the War Powers Act he can do anything to anyone at anytime as long as he thinks it is a matter of National Security.
From Boyda’s comments I would assume that she would not take a stand on anything that would conflict with this self appointed Presidential authority.
She needs a reality check.
She seems to forget that congress gets to authorize war and the president gets to execute it.
My question is what part of SJ Resolution 23 gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq. It has been proven by the 911 commision that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and SJ 23 only allowed military action against those that were responsible for 911.
If congress can authorize what can’t they rescind this authorization.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:10 amHave you people not realized yet? It is the Republocrats. Anyone who thinks there is a real two party system is kidding themselves. These people work for themselves regardless of who is in power. That is why there is little difference in what will happen before, and now after. Think about it, Bush, supposedly against abortion, (that is part of the reason conservatives vote for him) could have made it illegal over the past few years. The truth is, he really doesn’t care either way, (the rich could always fly to other countries if they had to) but it’s just talk to get votes. It’s time the American people stand up, and demand REAL answers from these pack of liars. And the Democrats and Replicans will never be the parties to do it. Oh sure they might buckle under public opinion for a short while, but after that they will continue doing what they want.
January 6th, 2007 at 8:10 amThe absurd part is to assume they ever did.
Hell they and their media cohorts are working feverishly to indict innocent Marines for the charge of killing guilty insurgents who either create roadside bombs and their accomplices in an attempt to handicap the troops in hope of putting them in more harms way so that hopefully they can report about more troop deaths.
Demoncrats are a vile disgusting and sick bunch.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:54 amjoeslogic,
Our country does not operate under the Code of Hammurabi. We do not believe in an eye for an eye. We believe that our soldiers and diplomats acting in foreign lands on our nation’s behalf are expected to represent the ideals that this country publicly says it supports and, yes, we all know that this president does not do that. Nevertheless, we believe that people accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty. The Marines facing charges have been accused of a crime and they are going to get their day in court and their chance to answer those charges. And if they are guilty of violating the UCMJ or the law, they will be punished accordingly. And if they are innocent, as conservatives are fo fond of saying, they have nothing to worry about.
You have alreay decided that the people killed were guilty and that the Marines are innocent. Since there seems to be some disagreement on that point, why not let an impartial judge decide who is right and who is wrong? That’s what a “fair trial” is about.
Do have a good day.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:34 amGive her a break….she’s a strong critic of the war and made a newby gaffe…she hasn’t even gotten her staff put together.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pmI know the Marines were taking fire from the buildings they cleared.
I know that the people in those buildings did not cooperate.
I know that every civilian in the local area knew there was an IED and several decided to hang around to watch the fireworks.
I know there are Demoncrats that just squeal with delight at the mere idea of Marines being ambushed.
I know that these scumbag Demoncrats have been enjoying their freedom of speech right to ridicule the Marines and use the issue as a propaganda tool.
I know that the news media repeatedly quotes Iraqi terrorists who make derogatory statements about the Marines without adding that their stories conflict as to what occurred (Proof that at least someone is lying)
I say if a forged receipt is proof for all you fools that Iraq was not attempting to buy yellow cake uranium then easily proof that Iraqi terrorists were claiming to be civilians and making up easily provable lies that the Demoncrats preach over and over. Is proof that the Marines are innocent.
Better than that I know that the Marines are innocent until proven guilty. And that there is no way that they can be proven to be guilty of any of the charges against them. “This includes Marine testimony …. if disputed is hearsay”
January 6th, 2007 at 4:59 pmjoeslogic said:
I know there are Demoncrats that just squeal with delight at the mere idea of Marines being ambushed.
I know that these scumbag Demoncrats have been enjoying their freedom of speech right to ridicule the Marines and use the issue as a propaganda tool.
Name them. Name these “Demoncrats” of which you speak. Name them and provide proof that what they said matches your characterization of these alleged remarks, and I’ll believe that you actually care about this country, and aren’t just another hate-filled conservative bent on taking this country back decades.
January 7th, 2007 at 10:16 amWayne,
January 7th, 2007 at 5:58 pmGood point, but Cut-and-run Joe is probably gone.
But if he is still around, in addition to answering Wayne’s question, he ought to take a look at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association (IAVA) website for their ratings on how everyone in the last (109th) Congress supported bills of concern to such war veterans. (Google the website. The last three times I tried to post it on one of these threads, my comments apparently got caught in a spam filter and didn’t get through.) If Joe actually takes the time to do this, he will find that all the members of Congress who received an A or an A- were Democrats. Republicans like Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Jeff Sessions, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Dennis Hastert, George Macaca Allen, etc. all had Ds or Fs. Even veterans like John McCain and John Warner received Ds for voting against things like slightly increased funding for research into traumatic brain injury. Yeah, Joe, your darling GOPers don’t give a fig if the military personnel they want to send to Iraq and Afghanistan nearly get their brains blown out!
I am from Manhattan, KS in Boyda’s 2nd Congressional District. I do not agree with what Boyda has said. I will also say that your stereotypes of Kansas is not true. Such stereotype is the same I held when I moved from Seattle a few years ago, yet now it has changed.
Yes, we do have some crazy people. Senator Sam Brownback scares the crap out of me! He scares the crap out of most people. Most people here don’t like creationism. Our school board voted to disregard anything the State School Board says in regard to “opt-in” sex ed and creationism in science classrooms.
Manhattan may be more ‘liberal’ than the rest of Kansas, but us liberals here are alive and well!
Sam Brownback embarrasses me, and really about 70% of Manhattan. You know he changed a lot since he was elected, and there is not a chance that we will become president in 2008.
The State Board is moderate now, since voters voted them out of office and evolution standards are expected to me restored completely again.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:33 pm