It's official: Congress disapproves of Bush's Iraq policy

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives demonstrated to this nation and to the world that they will no longer be a rubber stamp for the Bush administration. Yesterday, in accordance with the will of We The People, they passed a non-binding resolution denouncing Bush's Iraq policy. It passed by a 246-182 margin, with 17 Republicans voting in favor. [Read story.]

The text of the resolution reads as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

While I want them to follow up with some binding legislation, I found the following statement by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) interesting:

"The Congress of the United States knows that if we pass a bill, a law, a binding document, the president can veto that. What the president cannot veto is the opinion of the Congress of the United States, the judgment of the United States Congress, the advice and counsel of the Congress of the United States. He cannot veto that."

And so Bush cannot veto this clear message that Congress and the American people do not approve of Bush's Iraq policy.

The next step:

Now Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) is looking for ways to use Congress's control of the pursestrings to effectively stop a troop building in Iraq. Murtha's plans would "attach strings" to the additional war funds that Bush is seeking:

The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are "fully combat ready" with training and equipment; troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments; combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year; a "stop-loss" program forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited.

"We're trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, by redirecting money," Murtha said, adding he wants U.S. funds to be slanted more toward diplomacy and Iraq reconstruction.

[Read more.]

Murtha's plan is bold, yet practical. And, since it focuses on ensuring that the troops have the training and equipment that they need (which hasn't happened yet in this war), nobody can say that this plan doesn't support the troops.

Bush would surely veto any bill that would reflect Murtha's strategy. But we need to push for this legislation, and an overturn of any veto.

Enough is enough.