Liberal Talk Radio

House Democrats just got their shit together and passed a bill that would set benchmarks and withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by August 2008. President Bush will likely veto, if it ever gets through the Senate. (Which it probably won’t. the Senate is structurally designed to take things from the House and bury them in the backyard. This was somewhat useful to Democrats over the last three years or so, but I digress…)

The Republicans keep goading the Dems into cutting off funds. “Don’t micromanage the war,” they say. “Have the guts to cut off the funds.” Presumably because the GOP wants to be able accuse the Dems of cutting off funds for the troops.

But here’s the thing: apparently even if the Dems pass a bill cutting off funds, Bush can veto it. How the hell does that work? Can Bush really spend money on anything he wants, so long as the Dems can’t pass a bill with a veto-proof 2/3 majority? That seems absurd. If that were true, Bush could just start spending money on Mars exploration, or drilling in ANWR, or invading Iran for that matter, and unless the Dems could put together 2/3 of the House AND Senate, he could do it.

That can’t be possible. All I can figure is that Bush gets to continue spending on the Iraq war because he got congressional authority in 2002. Once they turn on the spigot, they can’t turn it off without veto-proof majorities. Or so it would seem.

But even so, the 2002 Congressional resolution authorized the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not only is Saddam no longer in power, he’s pushing up daisies in Tikrit along with his two sons and half the Ba’ath party. The 2002 resolution would appear to be “no longer operative,” to use a favorite administration phrase. So what gives?