Constitution Says Democrats Can End the Iraq War

RolandTD20Kdrummer

know1 wrote:

At least the Republicans are honest about it as opposed to the Dems saying they are against it, but doing nothing to stop it.

My question for all those who want to bring the troops back home immediately - do you all not think that there would be some negative consequences to that for the Iraqi people?

The negative consequence has already happened from 10 years of bombing back to the stone age, shock and awe ,and a full on aggressive occupation.

Saddam wasn't anywhere near that bad....not even close...

know1

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The negative consequence has already happened from 10 years of bombing back to the stone age, shock and awe ,and a full on aggressive occupation.

Saddam wasn't anywhere near that bad....not even close...

I do not disagree with the first part of your statement, but that doesn't really answer my question.

I personally believe if we just pulled all of the troops out today - and I do oppose the "war" - that a lot of innocent Iraqi civilians will suffer many more negative consequences in the chaos that ensues.

Abookamongstthemany

know1 wrote:

At least the Republicans are honest about it as opposed to the Dems saying they are against it, but doing nothing to stop it.

I agree 100% a bit frightening The libertarians get my respect before Democrats would, even with the differing ideology, because people like Ron Paul have been honest and stuck with their ideals. The Democrats have lied, pandered and made people think they are something they most certainly are not.

know1 wrote:

My question for all those who want to bring the troops back home immediately - do you all not think that there would be some negative consequences to that for the Iraqi people?

I think so many Iraqis are already dying due to our forces being there and the insurgency fighting them off. Not mention how we keep arming both sides of this infighting. The longer we stay there, imo, the longer it takes for Iraq to properly heal and move on. Our presence is hindering them getting back on their feet. Our methods are too abrasive to bring any closure to this horrible situation. I think peacekeeping troops should assist the Iraqis and they should receive aid until they are capable of running the country on their own. We can't afford to keep borrowing from China and sinking deeper into debt to keep this occupation going indefinitely.

WMA

baraka wrote:

This may be a dumb question, but it is my fear concerning cutting off funding while the Bush administration is still 'in charge'. I worry that cutting funding would not phase this admin's agenda over there. Our troops would still be there, the war would continue, just without necessary funds. We will be over there until we get rid of war-mongering admins, with or without funding. Are the dems between a rock and a hard place here? Perhaps I am wrong, just my thoughts. I mean, when Bush got re-elected in 2004, he placed a hiring freeze on the VA's during an active war.

Yeah, I agree. I think they are between a rock and a hard place.

It sucks when you have to choose the good of the country over political points with the far left. Either continue the war without the financial backing needed, or with. Not much of a choice.

There are a few Democrats that are too far to the right on some issues though, just as there a few Republicans who are further to the left on certain issues.

Abookamongstthemany

"Congress shall have the power to declare war... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers"

Commy

Kann wrote:

Do you honestly think that things would have been the same if Gore had been elected in 2000? Or even Kerry in 2004?
(This is an honest question by the way)

I think we would still be in Iraq yes, just the details would have changed.

Haliburton may not have gotten the no bid contracts but someone would have.

Abookamongstthemany

Congress, End the War

"War is over, if you want it," declared John Lennon in the thick of the Vietnam nightmare. To the extent that Lennon's "you" referred to the US Congress, he was right, then and now. The House and Senate have the authority to end the war in Iraq quickly, efficiently and honorably. Claims to the contrary by George W. Bush and his apologists are at odds with every intention of the authors of the Constitution. Which part of "Congress shall have the power to declare war... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" does the White House fail to understand? Unfortunately, it may be the same part that cautious Congressional leaders have trouble comprehending.

Democrats gained control of Congress in November with the charge to bring the occupation to a swift conclusion. Yet, as we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the story of the 110th Congress still seems to be one of an opposition party struggling to come to grips with its authority to upend a President's misguided policies. Nothing has illustrated the lack of direction so agonizingly as the debates over nonbinding resolutions opposing the troop surge; weeks went into advancing measures that, as their names confirmed, were inconsequential. For a time, it seemed as if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been so effective on the domestic front, was ceding any real leadership role on foreign policy.

With the announcement of spending legislation that includes benchmarks for progress in Iraq, and a plan to begin withdrawing troops if those benchmarks are unmet, Pelosi has begun to define a Democratic opposition to Bush's policies. But she has not gone nearly far enough. While Democratic leaders are finally arguing for a withdrawal timeline, it is not the right one. Theoretically, the plan would create the potential for withdrawal of some troops in six months. Realistically, because it lacks adequate monitoring mechanisms--Pelosi says determinations about the benchmarks would be a "subjective call"--the best bet is that even if the Democratic plan were to overcome all the hurdles blocking its enactment, there would be no withdrawals for more than a year.





Forcing Americans and Iraqis to die for Bush's delusions for another year while emptying the Treasury at a rate of more than $1 billion a week is unconscionable. That is why House members who have battled hardest to end the war are so frustrated with Pelosi's approach. "This plan would require us to believe whatever the President would tell us about progress that was being made," says Representative Maxine Waters, speaking for the bipartisan Out of Iraq Caucus. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey has been blunter, saying of the legislation, "There's no enforcement mechanism."

Waters and Woolsey are right. While we respect efforts by antiwar Democrats like Jim McDermott and Jerrold Nadler to negotiate with Pelosi in hopes of improving the legislation, conservative Blue Dog Democrats have already signaled that the price of their support will be the removal of any teeth put into the plan by progressives. Worse, they have tampered with the legislation in ways that may even encourage Bush's interventionist tendencies: The Democratic proposal for a timeline originally included a provision that would have required Bush to seek Congressional approval before using military force against Iran. But under pressure from conservative members of her caucus and lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Pelosi removed the language. By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval for a wider war.

The haggling over compromises points up the flaw in Pelosi's approach: It is too soft, too slow, too open to lobbying mischief and abuse by a President who has done nothing but abuse Congress for six years. America and the world are not crying out for a timeline that might begin extracting troops from Iraq a year from now. Almost 200 American soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis, have died since the Democrats took control of Congress. To accept that the war will go on for another year, at the least, is to accept that the death toll will continue to mount.

Democrats should recognize that the time has come to use the full power accorded Congress in time of war: the power of the purse. As Senator Russ Feingold says, "Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our servicemen and -women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger."

Instead of negotiating with Bush to give him another year of his war before facing consequences, Democrats should refuse to write another blank check. They should instead support Representative Barbara Lee's proposal to fully fund the withdrawal of US soldiers and military contractors from Iraq. Lee would give military commanders the resources they need to withdraw all troops by the end of the year by mandating that emergency supplemental funding be used only for that purpose.

There may not be enough Democratic and renegade Republican votes to win House passage of Lee's legislation--at least not initially. But tremendous educational and practical progress can be made by just saying no, as loudly as possible, to a President who has not gotten enough resistance from Congress. Setting up a conflict between Bush's desire to keep troops in Iraq through the end of his presidency and a plan to bring them home this year sharpens the debate at a time when the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that a majority of Americans now favor setting a clear deadline. Even as Bush blusters on about staying the course--or whatever the slogan of the moment may be--he is feeling the pressure to end this war. Indeed, he has already split with Vice President Cheney and other Administration hardliners on the issue of engaging diplomatically with Iran and Syria.

No matter what the ultimate exit strategy, engaging in regional diplomacy to help contain the civil war in Iraq and provide more international assistance to the Iraqi people is an essential step in repositioning the United States to be a constructive force in the region, as opposed to serving as a catalyst for a wider sectarian war. The Bush Administration's dawning recognition of this fact will be heightened and extended only if war foes maintain their resolve. If the debate in Congress is about whether to attach a few soft benchmarks to Bush's request for more money to maintain the occupation on his terms, he will feel little sense of urgency. But if the debate is about whether to provide only the money needed to bring the troops home, Bush will understand that time is running out for his strategy--and that he can no longer afford to casually dismiss diplomacy and the logic of withdrawal.

WMA

Instead of negotiating with Bush to give him another year of his war before facing consequences, Democrats should refuse to write another blank check. They should instead support Representative Barbara Lee's proposal to fully fund the withdrawal of US soldiers and military contractors from Iraq. Lee would give military commanders the resources they need to withdraw all troops by the end of the year by mandating that emergency supplemental funding be used only for that purpose.

and the next sentence:

There may not be enough Democratic and renegade Republican votes to win House passage of Lee's legislation--at least not initially.

Guess why it didn't pass when voted on?

WASHINGTON - Democrats aggressively challenged President Bush's Iraq policy at both ends of the Capitol on Thursday, gaining House committee approval for a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, but suffering defeat in the Senate on a less sweeping plan to end U.S. participation in the war.

Anti-war Democrats prevailed on a near-party line vote of 36-28 in the House Appropriations Committee, brushing aside a week-old veto threat and overcoming unyielding opposition from Republicans.

"I want this war to end. I don't want to go to any more funerals," said New York Rep. Rep. Jose Serrano, one of several liberal Democrats who have pledged their support for the legislation despite preferring a faster end to the war.

"Nobody wants our troops out of Iraq more than I do, countered Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida, who sought unsuccessfully to scuttle the timeline for a troop withdrawal. "But we can't afford to turn over Iraq to al-Qaida."

In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.

I wonder why this one didn't pass?

Abookamongstthemany

WMA wrote:

and the next sentence:



Guess why it didn't pass when voted on?


I wonder why this one didn't pass?

Feingold says they can and should end funding for the war without putting the troops in danger. They have the money for a withdrawal. Bush can not keep a war going that has no funding. Bush can veto, the Dems can filibuster...they are not powerless to do anything about it except keep voting yes to keep fiund the war.

DriftingByTheStorm

Abook:

With all due respect,
i believe you would have much more success with your approach if the information you posted was not so lengthy and "wordy".

Could you dumb it down to "soudbytes" for me?

Thanks.
-dbts-

ps - also, quoting congressmen from Texas (is this even still a state?) that are known racists only detracts from your case.

WMA

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Feingold says they can and should end funding for the war without putting the troops in danger. They have the money for a withdrawal. Bush can not keep a war going that has no funding. Bush can veto, the Dems can filibuster...they are not powerless to do anything about it except keep voting yes to keep fiund the war.

That is well and good if the president had any intention of removing the troops. Again, he was planning on continuing anyway. 200,000 civilian jobs/closing bases for the funds.

You going to change the subject to impeachment again? It seems to be a neverending circle of mischaracterizations.

WMA

Ok, I'm done defending. I'll stop bumping these posts to the top.

Good luck on your candidate.

Abookamongstthemany

WMA wrote:

That is well and good if the president had any intention of removing the troops. Again, he was planning on continuing anyway. 200,000 civilian jobs/closing bases for the funds.

You going to change the subject to impeachment again? It seems to be a neverending circle of mischaracterizations.

Why not? It's next logical step. The Dems haven't did anything to try to stop him...they'll just vote yes and be on their merry way. No attempts at filibuster or calls for impeachment.

The Reps called for impeachment over lying under oath and you're going to sit here and tell me that the Dems couldn't muster up enough on Bush to impeach after he leaves the troops stranded without funds not to mention all the other crap that people have already been calling for impeachment over? Riiight. Go ahead, post me the next excuse as why Dems don't have the power to do anything but sit on their hands. Our gov't has no means of checks and balances...it's all Bush's calls. And if the rest of the Reps in congress went along with leaving the troops out there without funds instead of getting on board with pushing for a withdrawal this fucking country should get off their ass and riot. And please tell me, who is preventing us from demanding more? Who is vetoing your voice?