I'm not sure I agree with him either. Unfortunately, nothing else the Dems are trying seems to have any effect. The one real tool they have right now, the power of the purse, is also the one tool they are afraid to use. If they cut off funding, they'll be painted as anti-troop, leaving our poor boys over there cut off, starving, and defenseless. It would end the war, but in the most ham-fisted abrupt manner possible. While a strong majority of the public now opposes the war, I doubt that kind of end is what they are looking for.
So, much as I admire Lewis's fortitude, I don't think there is the congressional will, nor the public support, to suddenly cut off all funding, effectively yanking the war out from under Bush's feet. I'm sure there are some people who would love that idea, but not enough to make it happen.
Once congress gives the Defense Department money, does the Defense Department have to spend the money a certain way, by law, or can they pretty much do what the hell they want?
Rep. Lewis is terrific in Congress, but he started terribly. From Time Magazine in 1986:
"In a Democratic primary runoff in Atlanta earlier this month, John Lewis was the clear underdog. But in the midst of a debate with the front runner, Julian Bond, Lewis challenged his opponent to on-the-spot urinalysis. "We can go outside and go to the men's room and take the test right now," said he. Bond refused, as he had before, saying, "I think true leadership is to resist this demagoguery, this McCarthyism." Lewis won a narrow upset, and doubts about Bond's commitment to the antidrug crusade may have been a small factor."
Bond was right. Lewis engaged in pandering demagoguery and defeated a brilliant, thoughtful man.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).