[Sandy]

Good job moving the goalposts there, so you admit there is no such congressional prohibition and to propose there are 67 Senators who would concur is a rather absurd proposition.

Why did you ping me? What are you talking about and how does it relate to anything I said?

[TeleStraightShooter]

Here buddy, I'll bring you in from the dark. In post #328 you alluded to a fictional future legislative act {If we forbid him to spend money on something,} to retort jveritas's position that currently the POTUS can legally allocate emergency funding from anywhere in the budget to fund the troops. You moved the goalposts from current law being discusses to fictional future law. And you did rather seamlessly whilst admitting your previous statement was flawed. Yhat's why I dropped you compliment.

Also, considering the future alignment of congress the people just elected, any such fictional future law to starve our troops out of Iraq would require veto override and that would take 67 Senators. That dog don't hunt.