Search
17739
DOORS
1732
CALLS
User login
Syndicate
The Senate prepares for a massive flip-flop?
Hillary Clinton has proposed a "reverse authorization" of the Iraq war, a proposition I find a bit strange, a bit redundant, and frankly a waste of time. Senators spend enough time and energy as it is harping on and/or defending what they or their colleagues did or didn't do. This measure will simply detract from a real, timely plan for withdrawal.
The bill would repeal the Senate's October 2002 vote to give Bush the go-ahead on Iraq, but it's unclear what implications this has for the President's action. According to the NYT, "Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve."
We do not need to a constitutional debate. We need to bring our troops home.
Strange also, that Clinton would propose this, as her 2002 authorizing vote has been an albatross around the neck of her campaign thus far. She still won't repudiate her vote (as John Edwards has) yet she wants the entire Senate to do just that?
This whole Iraq War
This whole Iraq War discussion has been a constitutional debate. Who has the power to determine how long they stay, Congress or the President? Once the debate is over, then the troops will either be coming home or not. What I don't understand is why the House or the Senate don't simply just move on to other business, let the war funding run out, and force Bush to withdraw the troops. I understand the political implications of "the Democrats not support our troops with armor, bullets, and other resources," but really, why doesn't the Congress just stall? It doesn't have to pass a bill saying we won't give Bush money, it has to pass a bill saying we will give Bush money. Just stall. Start working on education, health care, and other stuff. Bush's money runs out at the end of May anyway. What's he gonna do? Leave the troops out in Iraq will no resources? If he does, he will be the one who looks bad. It will become his worst nightmare when people start dying, he says "The Democrats didn't give them the funds," and we respond "You sent them into harm's way without the funds."
On the Clinton thing, it is not at all murky as to how her de-authorization bill would work. It would remove the President's ability to continue a war, and thus he gets 60 more days, as it says under the War Powers Act, to continue fighting, at which point, he has to get approval from Congress. I don't know why people are saying it's unclear what it would mean. If anything, it would work quicker than a time table that would remove troops by October or next March, and the president wouldn't get ANY money to keep fighting. Not to mention the symbol it would send to President Bush that doesn't come with a time table. It's much more symbolic to say "We are removing your power to fight" than to say "we are giving you this much longer to fight."
- Op-Ed: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
- Here's What I've Decided
- "Day of Reckoning"
- Obama Talks Policy, Family... and Football
- Sunday Screening
- And Now, a Moment for Blind Ambition
- Death to Parochialism
- For Our Two Readers Who Care About The Undergraduate Council
- Whatever You Like Parodies: An Awesome YouTube Genre
- 2am Discovery of the Day
Register to Vote!
 Voters registered on the website so far: |
1) What do you propose
1) What do you propose Congress do Cora?
2) This is not a flip-flop. Senator Clinton's refusal to call her vote a mistake and sponsorship of this bill are not contradictory because each is predicated on the knowledge had at that time. While you may disagree with Senator Clinton (I do based on my interactions with Senator Bob Graham), her statement of "if I knew then what I know now, I would have voted against the war" creates the difference between the two. Just because she voted to authorize the war and now wants to remove that authorization does not automatically make her initial vote wrong at that time based on that knowledge.
3) People don't realize, or at least the media has not picked up on it, but this same plan has also been proposed by Sen. Biden and Gov. Richardson. Sure we need to bring our troops home, but if a constitutional debate might help us do that, I'm all for it.