[w3QHxwNb]

This is the kind of progress I have been looking for. Finally, something real coming from the Democratic Party! This is something the conservatives shouldn't frown upon after slamming Dems on the non-binding resolution saying that they are wasting time and not doing anything real. Conservatives held the Dems feet to the fire and I guess we are finally seeing some results!

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." washingtonpost.com

After reading the article, let's make something clear before this thread gets hijacked.

This thread is not going to be a "I hate Kerry" thread. This is a serious issue that shouldn't be reduced to dumb talking points that attack one person simply because his name is in an article. You can discuss his comments and respond to them, but let's not take cheap shots. Let's not pretend we can't see this coming. We're not going to talk about what someone did or didn't do in 'Nam because this thread is nothing about that. Don't Kerry dump on this thread. This concludes my preemptive strike on the inevitable.

Back on subject -- I don't know how successful this will be, but it is significantly more ambitious than the non-binding resolution circus and allows the government to continue supporting the troops (in the neo-conservative eyes) while taking strong action against the war in Iraq that has been initiated and conducted by neo-conservative hardliners that have produced little or nil results after allowing them to execute a long war with impunity. They have not produced results nor have they been able to legitimize the AUF itself - which sensibly should make it null and void.

[Seiblybiozy]

This will be interesting, and I'm betting it gets shot down. There are Democrats that have issues with the proposal and chances are, they will reside with the Republicans.

[Thifiadardivy]

Interesting. I am interested to see Bush's response, especially in light of Britain withdrawing a portion of their troops. I'm glad they're taking some sort of action that represents their cause.

[cokLoolioli]

Yes, finally, some democrats are actually doing something instead of just talking. Luckily, the President can veto anything they put out, and they dont have the numbers to override. But the quote about what the President was authorized to do is wrong:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. That doesnt say anything about WMD or Sadaam.

[PypeMaypetasy]

Yes, finally, some democrats are actually doing something instead of just talking. Luckily, the President can veto anything they put out, and they dont have the numbers to override. But the quote about what the President was authorized to do is wrong:



That doesnt say anything about WMD or Sadaam.

BINGO!!!!!!

thus this is just more BS

[xLQLRcXh]

Yeah, let the whining from the right commence.

Last week, people were complaining about the non-binding resolution on Iraq, saving the Democrats were doing nothing. Now, it will be that the Democrats are doing the wrong thing, or that the Republicans will block it, or that Bush will veto it anyway.

Well, with a razor-thin majority in the Senate, there are definite limits as to how much the Democrats can do by themselves. To get this country going in the direction that most Americans now favor (that is, getting out of Iraq), enough Republicans have to get on board. But I wouldn't count on the Republicans to do what Americans have said time and again that they want to see happen. Hell, the Republicans blocked debate on a non-binding resolution! They will REALLY dig in their heels over a resolution with teeth.

Kudos to the Democrats (assuming they can agree on the resolution themselves!) for doing everything they can to bring our troops home.

[Weislenalkata]

Yeah, let the whining from the right commence. It's a given. Ironically, my take on it is that this has come about because Bush has not given any sign that he has any specific objective, beyond a let's-fight-em-there-so-we-won't-fight-em-here rationale (as if having troops in Iraq is going to stop, say, 20 or so goons from pulling another 9/11 on US soil), no apparent milestones or anything, just war and more war.

I thought the objective was to depose Saddam, set up a democratic government, and find the WMDs. Well, we accomplished 2 out of 3, and the WMD issue is moot.

[annouhMus]

BINGO!!!!!!

thus this is just more BS

Ihave to agree, Unfortunately, the congress can pass anything it wants but unless there are enough votes to overcome a veto, Bush will veto it.

[primaveraloler]

Yeah, let the whining from the right commence.

How is disproving a Congressman's words "whining"? Clearly the President was authorized to use the military for more than just deposing Saddam and ridding Iraq of (alleged) WMDs.

[Nurse_sero]

Yes, finally, some democrats are actually doing something instead of just talking. Luckily, the President can veto anything they put out, and they dont have the numbers to override. But the quote about what the President was authorized to do is wrong:



That doesnt say anything about WMD or Sadaam.

What about (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. Isn't that about WMD?

[cokLoolioli]

What about Isn't that about WMD?

No doubt some or many are, I havnt read all 983 of them. I simply pointed out that the resolution doesnt mention WMD in the authorization part. Iraq was about removing it as a threat, which came in many forms, IMO, not just WMDs.

[Nurse_sero]

No doubt some or many are, I havnt read all 983 of them. I simply pointed out that the resolution doesnt mention WMD in the authorization part. Iraq was about removing it as a threat, which came in many forms, IMO, not just WMDs.

No i haven't read them all either!

I was thinking though that if the Congress says that the terms of the original authorisation have now expired, for various reasons and they seek to re-issue some more contemporary and applicable authorisation. That seems to be a quite sophisticated political tactic. I'm not arguing it's right or wrong, just looking at it as being a better option than the previous one, that's all.

[w3QHxwNb]

Kudos to the Democrats (assuming they can agree on the resolution themselves!) for doing everything they can to bring our troops home.

Exactly! While the neo-con cheerleaders snivel about the President vetoing this and such, it amazes me how much they gloat that the Republicans vote against the interest of the people.

It was clear that the American people wanted the war to end immediately after electing in a Democratic House and Senate majority... but the people be damned. These few and far in between supporters for a failed foreign policy taunt the rest of Americans by making sure they don't get what they want - an end to this war.

Screw what the Democrats say. Screw what the American people poll about the war. Screw what Americans want.

I remember when a President won by the slimmest of majorities and then proceeded to decree that he had a mandate from the people to carry on the crusade. Not that the American people clearly voted differently, the Vice President called Americans terrorist supporters. Quit an alarming reaction that differed so much from the previous "mandate from the people".

So yeah, I agree wholeheartedly! Kudos to the Democrats for doing everything they can in their power to stop the war to put the will of the people that started at the voting booths into action.

Meanwhile, the neo-con cheerleaders can gloat about Republicans continuing to give the American people the middle finger.

"SPECIAL INTEREST OR BUST!" says the Republican motto.

[Shipsyspeepay]

Or the GOP will Fillabuster.

[merloermfgj]

If the Dems win, it is to their demise. They reversed the Gulf of Tonkien resolution leading to our loss in Viet Nam and the killing fields of Cambodia...and lead to the loss of power for the Dems for the majority of the next 2 1/2 decades.

This will be a repeat.

You'd think they'd have learned....if not the fact that when you abandon an ally to their enemies they get massacred...then at least that they are cutting their own political throats.

They seem to believe that when the true and complete slaughter in Iraq begins, and the takeover of the government by Al Quaeda and Iran happens, that the media will turn a blind eye and that Americans won't pay attention.

That is a bad bet.

[replicajoy]

I actually applaud that the dems are trying to do something real, but to do it in a dishonest way shows that they are no better than the republicans. Yes, it will get vetoed, as it probably should.

[PypeMaypetasy]

great idea......lets further not support the troops.............

this wont go well for them might work in 08 cause the media has bushed bush

but in the end...........not a good move

[LesLattis]

If the Dems win, it is to their demise. They reversed the Gulf of Tonkien resolution leading to our loss in Viet Nam and the killing fields of Cambodia...and lead to the loss of power for the Dems for the majority of the next 2 1/2 decades.

I thought it was the North Vietnamese and the Soviets that caused us to lose Vietnam. I did not know that it was the Democrats.

I was also unaware that we were on the way to "victory" in Vietnam at the point when we started pulling out.

[casinobonusa]

I give more credit for this more than the "non-binding" poop.

However, why don't we just take the soldiers out of the most dangerous areas and train the Iraqi soldiers and get the fuck out of there?

[RilmAlime67]

If the Dems win, it is to their demise. They reversed the Gulf of Tonkien resolution leading to our loss in Viet Nam and the killing fields of Cambodia...and lead to the loss of power for the Dems for the majority of the next 2 1/2 decades.

This will be a repeat.

You'd think they'd have learned....if not the fact that when you abandon an ally to their enemies they get massacred...then at least that they are cutting their own political throats.

They seem to believe that when the true and complete slaughter in Iraq begins, and the takeover of the government by Al Quaeda and Iran happens, that the media will turn a blind eye and that Americans won't pay attention.

That is a bad bet.

Iraq ain't no Vietnam buddy! And this just shows how much you fucking know about what the Democratic plan for ending our corrupt involvement in Iraq is. But you've got Rush Limbaugh's talking points shoved so far up your ass, you can taste his fingers.

You shit splitters always think you've got a direct line to God, and know everything. So fucking ridiculous, when you've been so wrong about just about everything so far. Give it up, your way doesn't work! And the majority of living human beings say so.

Your answer is, you've fucked shit up so bad, that we've got to sit back and let it continue? Are you out of your fucking mind?

I'm hopeful that the Congress keeps pushing to revoke GW's war powers, he didn't deserve them in the first place, he certainly doesn't deserve them now.

If there aren't enough Republicans with half a soul to support this measure and overrule a Presidential veto, they should begin impeachment proceedings immediately.