[Peace-discuss] Iraq War: conf. call with Sen. Durbin

[C. G. Estabrook]

No.  Congress could just defeat a bill funding the war.  There would be 
nothing to sign or veto, and the money would run out. The Pentagon would 
have to use what remained to bring the war to an end.

Instead, the Democrats meekly passed a bill to fund the war in May -- 
but said, oh, boy, we'll have to see "progress" before we pass another 
one in September...  Uh, huh.


John W. wrote:
> 
> On 7/19/07, *C. G. Estabrook* <galliher at uiuc.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     Durbin's answer about "setting the bar at voting for legally binding
>     withdrawal language [because] nothing less will move Bush" doesn't ring
>     quite true when everyone knows that the White House has announced
>     unequivocally that it will veto any "legally binding withdrawal
>     language." The Democrats want to be able to say that they did everything
>     possible to stop the war but couldn't -- while they don't do the one
>     thing that would work, not voting funding.
> 
> Please indulge my ignorance for a moment.  If the Congress were somehow 
> to deny funding for further war in Iraq (I assume this would be part of 
> some overall appropriations bill; is it both houses of Congress that 
> would have to pass such a bill?), couldn't Bush veto THAT?  And if Bush 
> vetoed it, wouldn't it require a two-thirds majority in both houses to 
> override his veto?