Congressman Acts to Revoke Iraq War Resolution

[PatrickHenry]

Matt Renner | Congressman Acts to Revoke Iraq War Resolution

In response to President Bush's speech Wednesday night, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have rebuked his plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq. Among Democrats, strategies for gradual draw-downs or strategic redeployments have been proposed and are being considered. Legislation to force the president to get authorization from Congress for a troop escalation has been proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) has joined Senator Kennedy's call; co-authoring similar legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Representative Abercrombie is the Chairman of the powerful Air-Land Subcommittee which oversees military ground forces and air power. Senator Harry Reid stated Thursday that he has enough Republican support to pass a non-binding resolution of disapproval for the president's plan. One Democratic member of the House of Representatives has taken a more drastic step. Congressman Sam Farr introduced legislation Thursday that would repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, essentially pulling the rug out from under the president. Revoking of the authorization that gave war powers to the president would stop the "surge" in its tracks and would mandate an immediate withdrawal of US Forces from Iraq. Accompanying his resolution, Congressman Farr issued this statement: "The longer this war drags on, the clearer it becomes that it is the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Trying to make up for the fact that the administration insisted on going into Iraq with too few troops more than three years ago by escalating our involvement now is not a 'new strategy.' There is a way forward, but that way is through withdrawing, not sending more troops."

How else are the troops gonna get out of that godforsaken quagmire?:eek:

[Scribbler1]

That would be interesting indeed. Doesn't the Prez have veto power even if they DID pass such a repeal? And since we ARE there, would withdrawing support be symbolic at best? It seems to me to be a waste of time on the part of the Dems. Withdrawing support to go into Iraq wouldn't mean much more than one of their ridiculous "non binding resolutions".

I suppose you could pass a bill to unring a bell too. Doesn't make it possible or even sensible.
And I think the new troops are starting to go in next week.

[Praxius]

The Citizens of the US (In my lovely canadian opinionated ways ) should aplor to the UN and get them to help out in Iraq and get your boys home. At the same time, get them to help you boot that asshole out of presidency.

A lot of respect would be shown by the world for an action like that. I'd buy a round for everyone too.

[The Dunedan]

The problem with that is that the sight of UN inignia, whatever its' purpose, would instantly ignite a civil war in the US. Trust me, it would take about five seconds for a whole bunch of powder-blue helmets to start acquiring .3-inch holes.

[mbricker]

I agree we need to get out of Iraq now - no more troops. This president is a mental case and thinks he is a dictator. Surely our forefathers did not intend for one man to have all this power.

[Scribbler1]

I don't think our forefathers intended for the US to engage in nation building either. I also believe the founders didn't forsee a nation of idiot sheep, but it looks like we have THAT too.

[Osborn F Enready]

It ain't the forefathers fault.

They knew the cost of sheepleism, and fought it in the revolution.

Its the decades of isolation brought about by capitalist success, that allowed the system to be overtaken from within, due to fear created by imaginary hobgoblins put forth by government and media together, joined by the umbillical cord provided by corporatism run amok since the late 1800's.

(my opinion of course)

[Scribbler1]

I would not blame the idiot sheep on the founders. But they are here nevertheless and they will be the downfall of this country. There is a limit as to how much government can "take care" of us before it turns into an imperial government.

[Gods_Mercenary]

The "Surge" might have been a good thing a few years ago with many, many more troops, but it would have been and is unfeasible.

[Scribbler1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this "surge" bring troop strength to the same levels of a year or so ago? It wasn't enough then so I would think it isn't enough now.
And a few thousand at a time, spread to Baghdad and surrounding areas sounds like anything BUT a surge.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Exactly, we are not a military power of numbers, this is a terrible tactic, from what I hear the extra troops are mainly going to be attained through the postponement of leave and other means, not actually new troops.

[Praxius]

Didn't they say that the goal was to get everybody out by November or something, but then they said they're not sure how long this project to take to make work?

Isn't that the same thing as a Yes/No answer, just to confuse you into prolonging it another two years until he's out?

That man's a friggin crock!

Frig if he was the Prime Minister of Canada, someone would have set a beaver off on him in his bedroom at night.

[brien]

Very few of these god damned Senators and Representatives in Congress care one iota about service men and women in Iraq. They merely care about getting re-elected, particularly the members of the House, since they have to constantly campaign to keep their cushy 2 year jobs.

The only Congressional people I would lend any total credibility to would be those who voted against the incursion into Iraq in the first instance. If there were, in reality, a united Congress whose intent was to disengage from Iraq, there would be numerous methods to do it. Defund the war immediately. Recind the original resolution to invade Iraq. Initiate a new resolution for disengagement. Even though they would be vetoed by Bush, a united Congress could over ride the veto with a mere 2/3 rds of a vote of 535 Congresspeople and 100 Senators.

So, Farr has the correct approach here.. Let's see how many people get behind his resolution. Let the honest be counted and the sniveling little weasels be outed.

Trouble is, many of the Congressional stooges will talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk. The US is stuck with GWB and any talk of impeachment is not only silly, but it is once again, mere posturing on behalf of any Congress-person. If Congress can't get 2/3 rds majority to over-ride a Executive veto, how will they ever get the 3/4 qtrs vote to impeach???? So any talk of impeachment exists in la la land.

Congress needs to circle the wagons, get the 2/3 rds majority vote, and reign this President in from his Wild West type forays into other sovereign nations.

[another day]

This means nothing. I've actually seen a quote from cheney where he says that a war cannot be run by a committee and that they will be pushing forward with the plan whether congress likes it or not.

Welcome to the dictatorship of america.

[Scribbler1]

That's why this country needs an impeachment two-fer. But, as technically the veep has no real authority, Blofeld is pretty much untouchable.

[dilligras]

Okay, how many of you military experts can tell me the proper way to fight an insurgency?

Any idea?

No?

I didn't think so.

General Petraeus wrote the book, so how's about we defer to someone who's opinion has some basis in experience, and knock off all the uninformed armchair policymaking, n'est pas?

Everything depends on the situation, and it is vital that our leaders understand that reality and constantly assess and reassess the situation in their areas of operations What we simply don't want anymore is to give people a checklist of what to do. We want them to think, not memorize. You know, a lot of this is about young officers. But we have to be clear with them, they have to know: You must be a warrior first, that is true, that's why we exist, we exist in many cases to kill or capture the bad guys. But on the other hand, we have to teach them: You're not going to kill your way out of an insurgency. No: you have to take out the elements that will never reconcile with the new government, with the system, but then try to win over the rest. And this part is not done with tanks and rifles. SPIEGEL: Is that a view widely shared within the army? Petraeus: Yes. You know, of course this is much less straightforward than the fight to Baghdad, but don't get me wrong. The fight to Bagdad was not easy. It was very, very hard, real people died and bled and we really blew things up, but -- we always knew how to do that, we have it refined to a very high level, we did combined operations that were really at the high end of our business. In fact, you could say that we practiced that stuff by and large for 25, 30 years while we were waiting for the big roll of Soviet tank armies at the Fulda gap or the northern German plain. But this other stuff, what we used to call the "little stuff" -- the build-up of civil infrastructures, the fight against low-key separatist violence, the dealing with local leaders, it is very, very challenging because it's non-standard and it's definitely not what we have trained for. The demands are very different. When it comes to insurgency, there is no army on the other side, no battalions, the enemy won't expose himself, it's all about intelligence.

Iraqi security force numbers and readiness have been moving steadily upward over the course of the last 15 months, Petraeus said. "The Iraqis are in this fight," he said. "They are fighting and dying for their country. And they are fighting increasingly well."

Points:
1. The insurgency has gotten stronger in the last 6 months, by all accounts.

2. Leaders must constantly assess and reassess the "situation", and react to enemy tactics and activities.

3 20,000 troops is a significant number in ANYONE'S neighborhood, especially if they are American troops and the neighborhood is infested with al-quaeda's despicable minions, as is currently the case in the al-Anbar province.

4. If President Bush has done anything right, it is in letting the generals take care of the war, instead of micro-managing every detail like Johnson/McNamara were famous for doing at every opportunity, to the great misfortune of many of our servicemen, including my fellow sailors who were aboard the USS Liberty in 1973.


As you were.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dilligras Okay, how many of you military experts can tell me the proper way to fight an insurgency? Any idea? No? I didn't think so.

You could ask the same question of Bush and get the same answer. The difference is, he ought to know a bit more than you or I as he was the one who put our people there.

Points: 1. The insurgency has gotten stronger in the last 6 months, by all accounts. 2. Leaders must constantly assess and reassess the "situation", and react to enemy tactics and activities. 3 20,000 troops is a significant number in ANYONE'S neighborhood, especially if they are American troops and the neighborhood is infested with al-quaeda's despicable minions, as is currently the case in the al-Anbar province. 4. If President Bush has done anything right, it is in letting the generals take care of the war, instead of micro-managing every detail like Johnson/McNamara were famous for doing at every opportunity, to the great misfortune of many of our servicemen, including my fellow sailors who were aboard the USS Liberty in 1973.

You mean listen to the generals Bush has replaced, or the ones there now?

And for point 1, if the insurgency has gotten stronger than a year or so ago, and the 20,000 will bring troop strength up to about where it WAS at that time and we couldn't take them out, how can this be a positive?

Point 2 is a given, and should always be handled this way. However, under Bush and Rumsfeld it appears it wasn't.

Point 3, the numbers are of course impressive, but just what will they be doing there and in what concentrations and locations? Those questions will need to be answered before we can seriously take a pro or con side.

Point 4, I was under the impression that Rumsfeld WAS micro managing the whole thing. If memory serves the generals wanted more troops a long time ago.

And when Cheney was talking about a "committee" he was talking about Congress. I don't believe Congress was suggesting they micro manage anything. It sounds like more fear mongering by Blofeld.

[dilligras]

Quote by: dilligras Quote by: Scribbler Okay, how many of you military experts can tell me the proper way to fight an insurgency? Any idea? No? I didn't think so. You could ask the same question of Bush and get the same answer. The difference is, he ought to know a bit more than you or I as he was the one who put our people there.

Wrong. The President does not have to know how to do everything, in order to get anything done. Such an approach is more the method of people like Saddam, whose ego led him to think he was a great military strategist. The successful manager knows that he must delegate authority to those who DO know, and then get out of their way, so they can get it done.

The premise that a President must be an authority on the intricacies of military endeavor before deploying his forces, is ludicrous on the face of it.

Does Hillary Clinton have the slightest knowledge of these matters? Does Barbara Boxer? Nancy Pelosi?

Not friggin' likely.

But, somehow I suspect that the first occasion of one of them chosing to "put our people there" will not be met with a similar skepticism from the portside of the aisle, but perhaps that is my natural skepticism surfacing.

Quote by: Scribbler Points: 1. The insurgency has gotten stronger in the last 6 months, by all accounts. 2. Leaders must constantly assess and reassess the "situation", and react to enemy tactics and activities. 3 20,000 troops is a significant number in ANYONE'S neighborhood, especially if they are American troops and the neighborhood is infested with al-quaeda's despicable minions, as is currently the case in the al-Anbar province. 4. If President Bush has done anything right, it is in letting the generals take care of the war, instead of micro-managing every detail like Johnson/McNamara were famous for doing at every opportunity, to the great misfortune of many of our servicemen, including my fellow sailors who were aboard the USS Liberty in 1973. You mean listen to the generals Bush has replaced, or the ones there now?

Your question appears to assume that it need have been one or the other.......this is obviously not proven, so your question is therefore nonsensical.

And for point 1, if the insurgency has gotten stronger than a year or so ago, and the 20,000 will bring troop strength up to about where it WAS at that time and we couldn't take them out, how can this be a positive?

It always amazes me when folks feign ignorance or a lack of imagination when analyzing possible scenarios involving topics in which they have an emotional investment in the outcome of the analysis.

I cannot believe that you cannot concieve of the possibility that the increase might be a reaction to current realities on the ground in Iraq, which might have nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons for an earlier reduction in troop levels there, especially in light of your acknowledgement below, that leadership must be flexible enough to react to changes.

Point 2 is a given, and should always be handled this way. However, under Bush and Rumsfeld it appears it wasn't.

Sorry, I have seen not one shred of evidence to support your charge of inflexibility against Bush and Rumsfeld, and until I do, I shall tend to include it with the rest of the myriad of unfounded allegations by politically partisan hacks and their loyal minions.

Point 3, the numbers are of course impressive, but just what will they be doing there and in what concentrations and locations? Those questions will need to be answered before we can seriously take a pro or con side.

In what world? I respectfully submit that your going to the ballot was the occasion upon which you delegated the authority for such decisions to be made for you, being part of a representative government instead of a democratic one, in which every citizen would vote on each and every issue being considered. So your impression of a 'need' for more information before bestowing your sainted approval is a bit misguided and self-serving.

Point 4, I was under the impression that Rumsfeld WAS micro managing the whole thing. If memory serves the generals wanted more troops a long time ago.

It appears as though it is now my turn to ask: which generals? Shinseki? Franks? Sanchez? Clarke?
Does your memory serve well enough to be specific?

I don't believe Congress was suggesting they micro manage anything.

Then you haven't been paying attention. They are already howling because they can't cut off funding to dictate policy in the operation to those legally charged with its prosecution.

I suppose next you'll say you've heard none of the Dems pontificating about 'oversight', eh? :rolleyes:


.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dilligras Wrong. The President does not have to know how to do everything, in order to get anything done. Such an approach is more the method of people like Saddam, whose ego led him to think he was a great military strategist. The successful manager knows that he must delegate authority to those who DO know, and then get out of their way, so they can get it done.

Sure, but the person who delegates that authority must assume responsibility for that person's actions. Bush is the man and the policy has been a failure. And since it didn't happen overnight, BUSH was the one who kept repeating "stay the course". You say he has no responsibility in this?

The premise that a President must be an authority on the intricacies of military endeavor before deploying his forces, is ludicrous on the face of it.

Yes it is, which is why I never SAID that.

Does Hillary Clinton have the slightest knowledge of these matters? Does Barbara Boxer? Nancy Pelosi? Not friggin' likely.

You just defended Bush for not knowing everything and condemn these Democrats for the same thing. This is a lack of consistency that you might not have noticed.

But, somehow I suspect that the first occasion of one of them chosing to "put our people there" will not be met with a similar skepticism from the portside of the aisle, but perhaps that is my natural skepticism surfacing.

Of course, since they didn't start it. If they had started this war they would have been just like the Republicans are NOW! That's not natural skepticism, that's bias.

Your question appears to assume that it need have been one or the other.......this is obviously not proven, so your question is therefore nonsensical.

Not at all. If nothing is proven then you cannot assume ANYTHING is nonsensical.
And it WAS one or the other. If Bush listened to his generals then they are partly responsible for this mess. If Bush DIDN'T listen to them your statement about delegating authority is false. And if you apply the same conditions to NEW generals the outcome is the same.

It always amazes me when folks feign ignorance or a lack of imagination when analyzing possible scenarios involving topics in which they have an emotional investment in the outcome of the analysis.

That sure was a mouthful of nothing. What is it that makes you think you have a CLUE as to what "emotional investment" I have in this matter.

I cannot believe that you cannot concieve of the possibility that the increase might be a reaction to current realities on the ground in Iraq, which might have nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons for an earlier reduction in troop levels there,

I go with what I see over what I might like to see. On one side I see a situation, while worsening, is essentially the SAME as a year ago. I hear people who know more that you or I saying they would need MASSIVE amounts of troops and they could have used them a year, or even three years ago. Then I see Bush commit a relatively small number of troops to handle the same thing as before and I see an extension of the same failed plan

especially in light of your acknowledgement below, that leadership must be flexible enough to react to changes.

And I also said Bush and Rumsfeld were NOT doing that properly. I agree with concept and not your favorites.

In what world? I respectfully submit that your going to the ballot was the occasion upon which you delegated the authority for such decisions to be made for you, being part of a representative government instead of a democratic one, in which every citizen would vote on each and every issue being considered. So your impression of a 'need' for more information before bestowing your sainted approval is a bit misguided and self-serving.

Wrong again. I said these questions must be answered before WE can debate the point. WE, meaning you and I. And your misinterpretation of any "approval" I might "bestow" is a bit stupid and foolish.

And I really can't debate anything with people who either can't read what I plainly say, can't comprehend it or put just words in my mouth.
I had thought you had gotten better with that. I was mistaken.

[brien]

Okay, how many of you military experts can tell me the proper way to fight an insurgency?

I don't have to be a military expert to know that this insurgency is not of our concern nor should we be involved in the first instance. How does this insurgency affect the national security of the US?

The US needs to quit stalking the world for boogeymen. When and if they show up in the US, that is the proper time to destroy them.