.....Clinton's support for revoking the war authorization is not new.

[rodeodance]

I am glad to see Byrd up there with her this week. Maybe it will get some traction??



http://mediamatters.org/items/200705050004?f=h_top

........Clinton's support for revoking the war authorization is not new. As Media Matters for America noted, Clinton's own Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007, which was introduced in the Senate on February 16, includes a provision that would "require a new authorization for use of United States military forces in Iraq unless both the President and the Government of Iraq meet certain conditions within 90 days, including the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."...........

[papau]

1. In 2002 she tried to pass a 1 year sunset on the IWR - Oct 03 - but that did not pass n/t

n/t

[karynnj]

2. "tried to pass" is overstated

Byrd was the sponsor, there were no co-sponsors. Hillary Clinton did NOT speak on the floor of the Senate from what I can find in Thomas. She did, like Biden, Dodd (and Kerry and Harkin- for that matter) vote for it.

[loyalsister]

3. This is great

I am so impressed by this initiative. Focusing on legislative power is a great approach. Not only in terms of philosophy but in terms of process and bottom up direction.
It's sort of a "people's work" initiative.
Nice work.

[Hart2008]

4. revoking the war authorization without revoking funding means nothing.

The "war" is over. We won.
Congress now needs to end the funding for the occupation , or impeach the POTUS and VPOTUS.
Bring the boys and girls back home.

We do need to hold the Senators who authorized this mess accountable too.

No promotions for incompetence.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[jillan]

5. Richardson and Biden both brought this up earlier this year before this

Obviuosly not together - lol.

Whatever- it's a good idea and hope it gains some ground.

[papau]

6. The Jan 2007 resolution by Biden/Hagel/Levin was similiar to Hillary/Byrd - but impeachment is the

only thing we can pass that will get his attention.

Biden/Hagel/Levin was the Jan 2007 resolution expressing the thoughts of the Senate as to ending the prior resolution called the IWR, but I am not sure a resolution, while good enough to get us into war, and a law in 2002 (Public law 107-243),is strong enough legally to get us out - but then perhaps nothing is.

Biden/Hagel/Levin resolution at the time seemed to be a rather timid approach, but perhaps timid was needed at the time as Dems take time and effort and small steps to develop a spine these days. And perhaps a second resolution would have done the trick. Hillary/Byrd seems a little stronger as she cuts back troops to minor training level as in 136 other countries- but Bush will take to Supreme Court if override wins and if new minor low number of troops is all that is authorized - and who knows what the USSC will do as to war powers..everything needs an override and then a court approval.

But House impeachment is majority vote - and that is the only thing we can accomplish these days until the next election in 08. Indeed that is the only thing that would not be tied up in the courts until after the next election.

As an aside, the Supreme Court OK that Bush's commander in chief powers are not absolute is not a guarantee - the USSC may say Congress can only end the war through impeachment as the Commander in Chief may spend/do whatever to "defend" us, with or without congressional authorization. This was the Reagan argument against claims his violation of the Boland amendment in the 80's was treason - and who knows maybe Reagan will be found by the USSC not to have committed treason - and we have been living in an elected dictatorship all these years, with the dictator/President needing only to cry "defense of the US" to take away any right or rule of law. I know the media supported Reagan on this in the 80's - and never raised a cry of "treason".

Impeachment seems to be the only way, as I suspect fund cut-offs will not work with this USSC - - so it is impeachment, or as Hillary says, elect a new president like Hillary that says they well immediately end the war after the election (in Hillary and Obama's case "end the war" means leaving troops in Iraq for training and force protection - I do not recall the position of the others - but it amusing to see folks pretend that Hillary and Obama have different positions on future actions for Iraq, when these folks are mirror images of each other with only very minor differences in positions.)