Why does Congress waste so much time on issues they have no control over?

Military units are already in Baghdad, or some are already on their way to Baghdad in preparation for Bush's plans for a 'surge';. Plus there are more following., Why are Nancy Pelosi and the rest of those politicians who opposed the surge even bothering with a 'resolution' against Bush's plan? He is obviously going to do whatever he wants. I just can't figure out why Congress wastes so much time and effort on an issue which - despite their not supporting - is already in place. It's like they are all talk but no action. They can't stop this ';surge'; can they?Why does Congress waste so much time on issues they have no control over?
Lots of people would falsely believe that the president is an all-knowing, all-seeing political figure. This type of view places the president above every other American; thereby, making him a king. If you take a good half hour and look at the Constitution, you will see that there are three EQUAL branches of government in our federal system. Each branch is charged with specific duties to perform, at the pleasure of the American people, through open, regular elections. One of the ultimate duties of each branch is to keep an eye on the other one. What one branch of government does, the other two can undo. It is true, the president is called the commander-in-chief. That is one of his constitutional duties; however, his powers are limited in this respect by the legislative branch, to wit: Congress. From a purely constitutional basis (imagine that), the president cannot simply go around the globe declaring war against anyone who gets his feathers in a ruffle. He must seek permission from Congress. Congress approved Bush's war in Iraq in 2003, yes, but they still control the appropriations (or money) necessary to fund the armed forces stationed there. The president can send all the troops he wants to Iraq, but that doesn't mean Congress has to provide him with the money they need to fight. In essence, Congress can ';check'; the president's authority by refusing the armed forces he so haphazardly commands any additional funds. In the end, you see, there is no king of the United States. Only elected figures, who are seemingly slaves of a fickle populous.





So can the Congress stop the president's surge? You bet your bottom dollar they can. Will they? I certainly hope so.Why does Congress waste so much time on issues they have no control over?
And Governors as well!!! the F*ing Governor of New Jersey came here (Iraq) for a cry fest and the National guard units HAD to attend! (no reg Military from NJ attended Thank God). He has as much to do with National affairs as Paris Hilton.
Some originally did support the surge, was it D.Reid or one of them suggested the surge right at the start. Just like they did at the start of the war they say OK and when Bush does it's like all of a sudden we are against it. Why didn't congress use their 'wasted' time to come up with a better plan besides cut and run???
yes, they can stop it....by not funding it. And that is their resolution, and believe me, it is reps who are supporting it too...
They don't care about the soldiers in Iraq, it is about their personaly hatred of Bush, This is all a political grandstand and will only serve to divide, not unite the country on this issue.
Its so History will show that Bush did this on his own.And despite all our efforts to save our military any more needless deaths and injury's. He pushed the surge on.