Quote Originally Posted by The Reverend View Post
What if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to present Congress with a bill to fund the criminal U.S. occupation of Iraq? The possibility of a Bush veto would not be an issue.

Although billions of dollars are still in the pipeline, President George W. Bush and the Pentagon, faced with a new political reality, would be forced to begin making plans for withdrawal.

As speaker of the House, Pelosi has full control over which pieces of legislation make it onto the floor for a vote. The Democratic Party majority in Congress could just sit on any war-spending bill and there would be no funds for the war.

Last November, when millions of people voted for Democratic Party politicians who claimed to be anti-war, this is exactly the kind of legislative action they expected them to take.

It is important to confront the direct fraud that the Democratic leaders, who control a majority in both houses of Congress, are putting forth as they prepare to fund the war. Ever since the election they have given endless excuses about how they lack the votes to do what they promised to do.

The Democrats claim that, because they do not have a two-thirds majority, they are powerless to overrule an expected Bush veto on a war-funding bill that would set a deadline for withdrawal. So they must pass a bill that Bush would approve.

But they could simply refuse to present a bill for ANY war funding.

They clearly have the constitutional authority, the legislative power and the political mandate.

One of Pelosi’s first acts as speaker of the House was to declare that impeachment proceedings against Bush were “off the table.” She would refuse to allow this burning issue to come to the floor of the House. Why not declare instead that war funding is “off the table”?

But it will take a massive, determined, angry and independent movement to force the Democratic majority in Congress to put impeachment on the table and take war funding off.
http://www.workers.org/2007/us/congress-0927/
Now you're quoting the unabashedly Socialist Worker's World Party?

It's really not quite that simple. Even if the Dems didn't pass a supplemental appropriation, we'd still have to pay to redeploy troops from Iraq, we'd still be on the hook for whatever money we spent up to the point that Bush was "forced" to withdraw troops, etc. If the Dems really wanted us out of Iraq, they'd revoke the AUMF passed in 2002. But they don't have the balls.