The new Democratic Congress exercised its clout last month when both the House and the Senate voted to support the Military Supplemental bill with troop withdrawal deadlines attached. President Bush threatens to veto the bill when it comes to his desk, but his political power is rapidly eroding. If he does force a confrontation, the issue could end up before the Supreme Court. Even Justice Scalia would have a hard time backing the President on this one. Meanwhile, every delay in approving the appropriation starves the Pentagon and puts more pressure on both the administration and Congress to move.

The House voted 218-212 to approve the $124 billion Military Supplemental bill on the condition that all US troops be withdrawn from Iraq by August 2008. The Senate voted 50-48 to begin withdrawal 120 days after the bill is passed. The Senate version sets a non-binding goal of March 2008 for completion of the withdrawal--the same goal put forward by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group last November. The Senate is expected to vote on the full bill next week and then the House and Senate will go into conference to hammer out a unified bill. Whatever bill is finally passed by both houses, it is certain now that it will contain a deadline.

Many progressives wanted to stop funding immediately and bring the troops home this year. Many conservatives who are fed up with the Iraq mess still fear to be seen as "not supporting the troops." However, it is a credit to the new Democratic leadership in Congress that they were able to bring both progressives and conservatives together for a bipartisan winning majority on this issue.

It's about time! Congress has allowed the White House to usurp so many powers and privileges that the purse strings are about the only thing it has left. Congress has the constitutional power to declare war but it has not exercised it since World War II. In resolution after resolution, Congress gave away this power to the executive to commit our men and women in combat when he saw fit. Since then we've been in wars in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Kosovo, Columbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many more. The Bush White House has claimed the right to flout the Geneva Conventions, wiretap citizens without court order, fire and appoint US attorneys without Congressional oversight, create secret prisons, conduct torture, decide who is and is not a citizen, conduct secret military tribunals, alter bills passed by Congress with "signing statements", claim executive privilege to hide secret meetings, and blatantly lie to the American people with impunity.

Bush claims that his role as commander in chief gives him all these overarching powers in time of war and since the so-called "war on terror" is a nebulous never ending fiction, he can go on exercising these powers forever. Not so. Here is what the Constitution says:

Article 1, Section 8--"Congress shall have the power . . . .

1. The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States: . . . "

The President, by these words, merely leads the armed forces of the United States when and if the Congress gives forces to him and it is the Congress who makes the rules. The President can use his "bully pulpit" to browbeat legislators to give him what he wants, but he cannot constitutionally make the rules. These days, Bush's bully pulpit is severely lacking in effectiveness.

A major public opinion survey released last week by the Pew Research Center found that 59% of respondents want Congress to require withdrawal from Iraq no later than August 2008. The same survey found that Democrats and independents demanded that Congress exercise greater control over US policy in Iraq. Even more startling, an "Insiders Poll" of 84 key Republican activists and organizers conducted by the National Journal found 84% (this is not a misprint) described Bush as a liability for the party and more than half said he was a "major liability." "In half a century," says right wing columnist Robert Novak--the man who outed Valerie Plame on the Bush administration's behalf--"I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress."

Meanwhile, Bush's "Surge" has become a flop. He flouted his own bipartisan commission's recommendations and the will of the American people in the last national elections by publicly asking for 22,000 more soldiers to send into the Mesopotamian mess. The real number is north of 35,000 when support elements are included. However, our military is so overcommitted by the administration that these soldiers will dribble into Baghdad piecemeal all the way into summer. Which leaves the commanders on the ground with yet another ill-conceived, slapdash plan with no clear goals or strategy, and not enough troops.

The Iraqis aren't waiting. February was a record month for car bombings in Baghdad. In March, they also began using deadly chlorine gas in their bombs--a major escalation. They almost assassinated the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie, and earlier they massacred 20 people in Sadr City just a few hundred yards from one of the new US bases. After only a month, the "Surge" is unraveling into one more embarrassing failure for the commander in chief.

So back to the military supplemental bill: what should Congress do if Bush vetoes it? The worst thing they can do is surrender--strip the deadlines out of the bill and meekly tender it back to the White House. Equally unsmart would be to stubbornly send it back with the same language, or to use the supplemental as a bargaining chip for other Democratic priorities. The Congress must stay focused and smart if it really wants to end the tragedy of Iraq.

Blogger David Sirota, in the Huffington Post, offers some suggestions. He points out that the majority of Congress has already spoken on the record, so they have nothing to lose by standing their ground. He also points out that the majority of Americans are behind them. He calls for a "carefully aimed shotgun approach." They could remove the timetables but tighten training and rotation schedules. That would shut down the war because the military can't meet even the schedules they have now. Congress could circumvent Bush by calling on the generals directly to join in a Congressional commission to work out a withdrawal plan--they have the authority to demand the generals' appearance. Meanwhile, the Democrats would have to approve extremely short term supplemental bills to keep the soldiers funded and to dodge the accusation that they are "cutting off funds for the troops." Sirota and the commentators on the blog have several other suggestions which are surely being considered on the Hill.

As progressives, we must keep up the pressure on Congress. They must know that we want results and that boldness on their part will be strongly supported by us. Sure we want more and we want it sooner. But the reality is that steady, consistent pressure--and don't forget the "thank you's" when they do move forward--is the best way we can empower them to end this Iraq fiasco.