Congress CAN stop Iraq Occupation...if they want to...

From David Sirota:

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/09/the_innocent_bystander_fable_g.html

The Innocent Bystander Fable Goes Into Overdrive

By David Sirota
Working Assets, 9/10/07

The Washington Post is the latest Establishment media organ to push
what I have called the Innocent Bystander Fable (memorialized at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7raAL3Wld0
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7raAL3Wld0}).

This is the myth that Democrats have no power to stop the war,
despite controlling both houses of Congress. The Post writes,
"Democrats began their fight against what came to be called the surge
with public opinion on their side, but with virtually no real weapons
to force Bush to change."

For reference, here is Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:


"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made by law."
Translated into vernacular, that's the part of the Constitution that
says the Congress - and only the Congress - has the power of the
purse. If congressional leaders decided to NOT use that power of the
purse, this war would be over.

And let's be clear on one more thing. You know how we're hearing all
this talk of "we don't have 60 votes, much less 67 votes" to pass a
bill to end the war? The Post regurgitates it, claiming that "because
of a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate and 67 votes to
overturn a veto, Reid faced an almost impossible challenge" to end the
war.

Just stop for a moment and flip the argument around. The argument
inherently admits that all you need is 40 votes to stop a blank check
from passing the U.S. Senate (and this says nothing of the simple fact
that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
could simply refuse to bring another blank check war spending bill to
the floor of their respective houses of Congress).

So while you may or may not agree that Congress should use its power
of the purse to end the war, there is no debate that Congress does,
in fact, have the power of the purse to end the war - and thus
Democrats who control Congress do have a very "real weapon to force
Bush to change."

Now, I understand why Democratic politicians in Washington are
pushing the Innocent Bystander Fable. Facing polls that show the vast
majority of Americans want an end to this war, they need to come up
with an excuse as to why they refuse to end the war - and so their
excuse is the Innocent Bystander Fable's claim that they just don't
have the power.

But now the Innocent Bystander Fable is being taken up by the Beltway
media as an assumed fact. It is being woven into the political
narrative as something as concretely true as water being wet.
Reporters have, in other words, become totally complicit with
scheming politicians who want to pretend that the U.S. Constitution
quite literally does not exist.

Such irresponsible behavior by the press rivals its complicity in
pushing the nation to war by refusing to ask questions about pre-war
intelligence. Only this time, it's arguably worse. Whereas
beforehand, reporters could at least sound vaguely credible by
arguing that they were "fooled" and didn't have access to the raw
intelligence, this time, it's impossible to pretend they don't know
what the U.S. Constitution is or didn't have access to a copy of it.

And the result is basically the same: Casualties mount and American
national security is weakened all because the folks in Washington
refuse to ask our political leaders the most basic questions about
the most basic facts.

Wrap...