Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization

Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization

By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 23, 2007; Page A01

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

.....................


"We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein," Biden said of the 2002 resolution in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."

Biden and Levin are drafting language to present to their colleagues when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, following a week-long recess.

The new framework would set a goal for withdrawing combat brigades by March 31, 2008, the same timetable established by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Once the combat phase ends, troops would be restricted to assisting Iraqis with training, border security and counterterrorism.

Senior Democratic aides said the proposed resolution would be sent directly to the Senate floor for action, without committee review, possibly as an amendment to a homeland security bill scheduled for debate next week.

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201743.html

:kick:

It is too big to be manageable with too much power

eom

The new framework would set a goal for withdrawing combat brigades by March 31, 2008, the same timetable established by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

They are bolstering the recommendations of Robert Gates, et al., and this puts Little Boots on the defensive, because he'll be seen as defying the ISG once again, which is the same thing as defying Poppy bush one more time. Very clever.

How will Cheney spin this as aiding al-Qaeda? He can't.

The whole thing is a clusterf*ck, though. How many more will die between now and 3/31/08, considering that the number of deaths keeps rising faster and faster. :(

that an estimated three more troops die every day that Congress sits and debates what to do. That means that during this little weeklong vacation they're on, 21 more (twenty-one!!!) of our brave and beleaguered soldiers have died. :cry: It's shameful. :grr:
I went to protest at Claire McCaskill's thank-you dinner last night. I don't know if you know anything about her, but she is my senator here in Missouri. There are many in my state who feel that she is not doing enough to stop this horrendous waste of our young men and women, and so we wanted to send her a message. There were about 2 dozen of us there, and she told her people inside to come out and talk to us, shake our hands, because we were using our voices, standing up for what we believed in.
I just don't want her to start playing politics. This is not the time for politics. This is the time for establishing peace and saving lives, regardless of what it may cost her in the long run. Those lives are far more important than her political career. And I don't think she understands just yet, that most of the nation is behind the push to BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!!! She ran a campaign using Iraq War veterans, promising to see that they were taken care of. NOW is the time to act on that promise! Not one more death, not one more dollar, not one more day. No more war.

that's no estimate. its fact. the rate for the past twelve months:
1.00 Mar 2006
2.53
2.23
2.03
1.35
2.10
2.37
3.42
2.30
3.61
2.68
3.16 Feb 2007 month-to-date

Let's set aside the horrendous casualty figures of the wounded for a moment. 3 troops per day, and not leaving until March 2008, means at least one full year of attacks. Another 1100 deaths.

But I've seen the numbers rising, which parallels what happened in Vietnam. bush will start adding more fuel to the fire and the violence will keep escalating. This war is a monster.

the research on the subject and was simply going off something someone said. I try not to pose things as facts unless I am sure they ARE facts. Thanks for letting me know.

How many more will die between now and 3/31/08, considering that the number of deaths keeps rising faster and faster.

It's so frustrating, and you've put your finger on the largest concern, Straight Shooter. How many more people will die between now and over a year from now? The politicians talk as if these people are not relevant. To me, they are the only ones that are relevant. Whether they are U.S. citizens or citizens of Iraq, Iran... wherever... they are the only ones that are relevant. I'm so terribly frustrated with all the delays and posturing going on in this country, all the while people are dying needlessly.

So at last, it starts. We have a long slog ahead of us.

votes, (No?) to pass in the Senate. I was so discouraged when they blocked the non-binding resolution and it makes me think that the Refreaks are just going to block everything.

Am I right here?

but they certainly could--those "obstructionists!"

the other side of the coin is that some of them have to run in 08 also. and THEY will be on record for doing this crap.

Screw them. They were total assholes when they were in power. Who cares what they think? Do a midnight passage and bypass them

let them continue to muck it all up

The vote last week was to end "debate" on the issue...that required the 60 votes. Any bill just needs 51 to pass.

This means the pressure must remain on all the vulnerable Repugnicans...11 (excluding Liebermann) which would prevent McConnell from blocking on keeping the repeal of the IWR from getting a full "up or down" vote.

As this war continues...as does the carnage...the pressure gets greater on every Repugnican up for re-election next year to justify why this pillage continues. Already, we have at least 6 GOOP votes (Hagel, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Coleman & Collins) that crossed over and severa others that are having real problems with it (Warner & Sunnunu) that could swing over as this debacle gets worse.

The bottom line is the GOOP doesn't want to run in '08 on Iraq...it cost them in '06 and it'll bite 'em even harder if there's still a daily "drip drip drip" of casualties and bad news from Iraq. They'd rather run on phantom issues like Gay marriage & abortion...or even immigration (xenophobia has been honed to a fine art by the GOOOP)...that can't happen if Iraq is still blowing up.

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?

(We trade a Lieberman for a Hagel. Get Collins and, "voila!", we have 51 votes.)

Hagel is the GOOP's Liebermann and I've long felt Joementum can go pound sand...and like David Sirota, I agree that if the bastard wants to make it formal he's a Repugnican, let's get the damn thing over with and then he'll become even more irrelevant.

The obstacle is closing debate...or "closture"...the archane Senate rules require 60 votes just to move to the next step...the vote. If last Saturday's vote is an indication, we're 5 Repugnicans shy...and that's where the pressure needs to be applied. The best way to wear them down is to continually force the Repugnicans to go on record about this war...and wedge as many into the corner of defending the carnage and booshie at their political peril.

I doubt Republicans would block a Homeland Security Bill or Defense Appropriations bill. They would have to kill the whole bill to get rid of this one rider... Hard for them to do that. Their votes will be recorded...

You're right that they could block it with 40 votes, but to do that they'd also have to block the bill it's attached to.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's fucking sad.

I like it.

This stands a much better chance of actually bringing our troops home than a simple resolution to withdraw. 1) it points out in logic that a freeper can understand that the objectives of the IWR either didn't exist (WMD) or have been accomplished (regime change), 2) it uses the ISG's recommendation (I want to kiss the Senator who put that in there, even if it's Biden :evilgrin:), and 3) to block it, they have to block the whole bill.

It may be premature, but game, set, and match. :bounce:

Finally!!

Now tell me they're also considering reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, and I may just plotz!

:hi:

We wouldn't want you to plotz. :)

Bringing the bill directly to the floor = for a vote = seems to defeat the FILLABUSTER, But I doubt Liberman would vote for it- so - I dont know if we have enough votes to pass it.

vote party line with Republicans. A mugger wearing a name tag that says SAINT is still a mugger. All right, Democrats aren't saints and Liebermann isn't a mugger. Liebermann is worse than a mugger and headed for the Ninth Ring of Dante's Ninth Circle where his skin will be flayed and he'll have to stand in shit up to his neck for eternity.
Back to the point: The Democrats have to put their adversaries on the record as to their Iraq position. Make the Republicans go on the record at every turn. 2/3 of the American people and 80% of the Iraqis want us out of there. Any war fought without popular support is going to fail.

Not that I'm naive enough to think this is going to be the end of the war — the Republicans will filibuster it, the mythical moderate Republicans will be whipped into partisan lines, and Lieberman (who supports this war more vocally and fervently than most of the GOP) will cross the aisle to keep it from passing.

But the important thing is that somebody finally reminded our Congressmen that all this talk about the "power of the purse" is a pointless diversion that will trap you into the inane "but what about the troops?" debate ... when all along, you have the power of the power. Congress, not the President, decides when our troops are deployed; the President's status as commander-in-chief is only relevant when Congress says we need a commander.

here.

Get these bastards.

B*sh won't let a little thing like a legislative retort stand in the way of his dictatorship.

He thinks the separation of powers mean that he, Cheney and Rice have their own roles in shaping a fascist regime in America.

Oh...wait...um...

Hope you're feeling better Will. Heard you on Randi. Well done.

There's no difference between them and the Repugs :sarcasm:

But I suppose public masturbation technically qualifies as "something."

They can De-Authorize, Un-Authorize, or Dis-Authorize anything they like.

Or rather, they can't.

Because they can't get past the filibuster. And even if they do, they can't get past the veto. And even if they do, they can't get past the "rule by signing statement."

And even if they do all that, they get laughed at and told (again) "We don't need no stinking authorizations!"

And we get some Iran/contra Supersized, while they continue their circle jerk.

It's like rats in a maze.

Only Impeachment ... is THE CHEESE.

It's the only thing that makes any sense on any level - moral, logical, political, historical, electoral -- you name it. (That is, if one's not mired in the Beltway Bedlam Blather Bubble.)

It is our ONLY meaningful option.

--

:yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock:

why were they on a week-long recess?!

Even if this does not pass - I AM STILL THRILLED! I am enthusiastic - because this shows that the spinal transplant has been successful! and it's the netroots and the so-called blogosphere and the anti-war movement that did the surgery. The surgery was long and painful. And of course, the Senators also resisted physical therapy and counseling (in the form of constituent outrage) for their timidity, since they seemed to prefer to stay comfortable lying around and feeling sorry for themselves. But after many months they are standing and walking a little (still wobbly because they are not used to their majority and don't really have much of one anyway) - but they're getting stronger day by day.

I see that the American people aren't going to tolerate Congress not providing oversight of this war an-y-more!

No more wimpy non-binding b.s.!


peace
:)

Is this a retroactive "we shouldn't have gone" or a in-the-now "what we authorized is complete, you're done."

I guess I don't quite understand the point of this. Is it more a slap on the wrist, or will it actually accomplish something substantial?

Sounds like a slap on the wrist rather than anything substantive. If they actually want something to happen defund the war. And non of this non-binding resolution crap.

it is supposed to be "what we authorized is complete"

That is actually a very smart tactic.

After all, "mission accomplished" WAS declared.

The "mission" on this thing has changed 4 or 5 times, and only the first was authorized.

There was no authorization to run a counter-insurgency, because it was assured emphatically there would be no insurgency.

Chimpy DID say mission accomplished.

The Admin is all set to attack IRAN. They need to curtail the evil one's absolute power IMMEDIATELY.

:cry: WAAAAAH!

Interesting to note that of all the Senators, other than Senator Kerry, involved in this, Senator Feingold is the only one who supported a timetable prior to this.

Big kudos to Kerry and Feingold for focusing the debate and staying on top of the issue.

when I posted it a week ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3116233

I know what you mean. sometimes a post just gets lost - depends on who's logged in, what the topic of the moment is.

something I was very excited about ultimately is viewed in the same light here
better late than never, right?

In response to the "surge" OP 18 Dec 2006, I wrote scenario one:Congress can use the war powers act attached to the Iraq funding bill to force bushchenny into reauthorization for the war. As obvious as it is, they (congress)want to play political games.
It seems to me the games are now coming from both sides. Stop,redeploy,almost,
maybe,definitely,fund,surge,fund what's there,non bind,test vote,sense of the congress. I call BULLSHIT!
Get your act together now! Get the troops out! Out now!

a more comprehensive report that includes Kerry's contribution to the plan: setting a deadline, which addresses withdrawal. The Raw Story article states that the revocation of the authorization comes in response to Gates' claim, beyond that it does nothing. Also, this article reveals a strategy for getting it to the floor and passed, which may appeal to some.

Register as a co-sponsor of the legislation: setadeadline.com.

Fuck the non binding resolutions! Go after the warmongerers with everything we've got!

To ramp up the pending attack on Iran knowing they may be stopped ?

It's the corner the rat anology .

If you listen to HRC or Obama or Edwards or any one on the right side of the wrong party if not now then when?
I started off anti impeachment as a political strategy to win the election. The "off the table" may have turned the corner for the independents. Still have serious concerns about a strike at Iran.
At this point we either suck it up and impeach or kiss the constitution good bye. For me, I want to start with the attorney general first.

it would be good to take into consideration that with the latest DoD releases, the four-month period of Nov'06-Feb'07 looks to have an average of 90 fatalities per month - the highest four-month period since Feb'05.


And just to reminisce a bit, here's a link from 1394.5 days ago, when the combined fatalities from Afghanistan and Iraq were 225. Put another way, maybe using lingo a fratboy can understand, that's 3319 dead soldiers ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/

"The exterior of the four-seat Navy S-3B Viking was marked with "Navy 1" in the back and "George W. Bush Commander-in-Chief" just below the cockpit window."



OK, fratboy. job well done. You ousted saddam and got your rocks off landing on a carrier. Here's a big damned pat on the head. Hell, I would even hold my nose and give you a high-five or something if it would make you go away.

Now we are taking away your toys(I hope).

"President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research."

SO...could the revocation of a Congressional war resolution be the subject of one of Bush's "signing statements"?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

As I see it, AUMF 2002 is the linchpin for the Neo-con/PNAC plan for Republican hegemony. Unitary executive power would be merely a matter for academic debate without the extraordinary powers assumed by the president during a time of war. Bush's entire presidency rests upon his assumed power to thumb his nose at Congress and the courts, augmented by the AUMF. Removal of this authority is a huge step toward taking our country back from the new American aristocracy, and deserves a full-court press, if I can be forgiven a sports metaphor.

I see the events of the next several months unfolding this way: First, in voting to end debate and voting to pass the resolution, Republicans casting dissenting votes have to go on record voting in favor of sending our ill-equipped, under-trained and exhausted children off to their almost-certain deaths twice. Their dissenting votes will also put them on record as supporting uncontrolled, deficit spending and will serve to highlight their support, over the past six years, of the highest budget deficits in US history. A dissenting vote means an almost certain death knell to their political careers.

Once it reaches the president's desk, the trauma is still not over. A presidential veto will mean that dissenting legislators will have to fly in the face of the will of the majority of the electorate for a third time in the override vote.

Further, a presidential signing statement negating this resolution will almost certainly force Congress to test the constitutionality of this particular signing statement, if not the entire issue of presidential signing statements, before the Supreme Court. I suspect it would also make the issue of impeachment much more palatable to all but the most virulent of the Neo-cons in Congress.

Tin-foil hat, anyone?

What keeps me awake at night is the notion that one of the few ways for the PNAC crowd to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat is the occurrence of another national tragedy of 9/11 proportions within the very near future.

Unless 10 or so senators mysteriously switch parties, this will be deja vu all over again. If they wouldn't vote for a nonbinding resolution, they sure as hell won't vote against Dear Leader on this. It's not a total waste of time though. By bringing it up on every bill presented, Iraq is in everyone's face all the time. There are 2 ways the war will end: impeachment of both Shrub and Cheney or the election of a Democratic president.

Democrats.