Byrd and Clinton are going to try and get the IWR nullified--today

[AlCzervik]

according to the CNN. no link yet, just heard it.

[babylonsister]

1. Any clue how they might do that, and what the result might be, and

why are they the lone two? (I know, just wondering 'out loud')

[AlCzervik]

4. Dana Bash said "The will offer legislation today".

[babylonsister]

6. Thanks. May be time to watch CSPAN2. nt

[IndyOp]

Stunned. Not at Byrd. Won't complain, won't criticize anyone who gets this done. (n/t)

[peacebird]

2. Really? I love Byrd, may be forced to rethink Clinton if she does this.

[lyonn]

3. Just heard. How fun is this?

As long as these issued are brought on the floors of Congress or in the hearing rooms, we are keeping the bushies on the run. The Dems are keeping the pots stirred.

[AlCzervik]

5. well it's something, i'd love to see it pass and be veto proof.

[SCantiGOP]

9. another good thing

even if it passes and isn't veto proof, it forces the republicans to vote for it again when 2/3 of the country thinks it was a mistake.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. And gives the Democrats ammunition to use against those running for reelection in 2008

It's a smart move.

[wtmusic]

7. A little late, doncha think?

This is pathetic. Accept your mistakes, and move on. Half a million people are already dead.

[bigtree]

14. what's pathetic is criticism from those who haven't supported ANY of their* efforts so far

to end the occupation. What about the 'mistakes' of those who oppose our leadership efforts in obtaining the necessary support for their initiatives? Why is our leadership to blame and that crowd who couldn't get their proposals enacted blameless? Everyone opposed to the occupation faces obstacles to enacting their ideas.

Where is the accountability from those who failed to enact their more strident proposals? Anyone can throw around proposals which don't have a chance in hell of getting enacted. Just suggesting or demanding initiatives that are DOA doesn't insulate legislators or anyone else from their share of responsibility. If Democrats obstructed by republicans are to blame for the deaths (I don't believe this), then so should others who failed to gather enough votes or support to stop Bush.

[EFerrari]

34. Not to be a huge pain , but what effort to end the occupation?

The vetoed bill said nothing about closing our bases or about the mercs or even, about getting all our troops out.

If our troops are still there, and if our bases are still open, and if we have thousands of mercs running around the country, how does that end the occupation?

Did you mean "symbolic gesture vaguely aimed at signalling to the base that we sort of remember you"?

I'm sorry, bigtree.

[bigtree]

56. Oh, you know

the effort you continue to mis-characterize.

EVERYONE sees their efforts as an attempt to end the occupation except for the critics in our own party.

[EFerrari]

71. Then maybe EVERYONE should have read the bill. n/t

[bigtree]

73. or maybe they should all just bow down to your superior view

but to suggest they haven't read the bill is amazingly petty. Good luck with that.

[EFerrari]

75. I don't know where that comes from, really.

If you read the bill, it doesn't say anything about the mercs, the bases or about fully extracting our troops.

If you want to attack me, well, okay. Most of us are very invested right now; I understand that. Tempers will flare, whatever.

But wouldn't it be more useful to just look at the bill? To look at the words?

The Democratic leadership has a big challenge right now. They are doing a good job. And, yes, it is possible to disagree with them without being a troll or someone with a superiority complex or a traitor.

Imho, they aren't asking for enough. Negotiation is all about where you start from.

[EFerrari]

76. Here's a link to the text of the bill. It's a pdf, I apologize that

I couldn't find anything more convenient.

http://ips-dc.org/iraq/supplemental%20part%201.pdf

[Zhade]

53. Those efforts would be...?

Non-binding resolutions?

[bigtree]

57. much more effective than the empty hand that the ones with more strident proposals

have accomplished in this Congress.

[wtmusic]

60. The so-called "strident" proposals take time

and the people who advance them, like Feingold with his motion to censure, are the true leaders. They are paving the way for proposals that will pass, and risking their careers to do it.

[bigtree]

64. right. give Feingold consideration that you won't afford the rest

He's paved NOTHING so far. His proposal is still in the talking stage. I fail to see how that effort is superior to the one which confronted Bush at his desk in legislative form; as if all of those who bothered to support and defend the effort weren't putting their own careers 'on the line'.

[wtmusic]

66. Simple question

What will nullifying the IWR accomplish? :shrug:

[bigtree]

68. It takes away Bush only legislative pretext for the Iraq occupation.

Simple question:

Why do you insist it was so wrong for Edwards to support and co-sponsor the IWR, yet think nothing of repealing it?

[wtmusic]

69. Wait just a second...

So it takes away Bush's legislative pretext. So what? It changes nothing of substance.

It does make IWR Democrats look petty and foolish for acting like this absolves them of anything.

[bigtree]

70. It is a step, not a total solution. No one has claimed that it's some panacea

so enough with the strawmen.

Why in hell would Byrd be looking to absolve himself of ANYTHING regarding Iraq?? He led the fight against the IWR, calling it a 'blank check'. What a bunch of hooey. Good on Byrd and Clinton for attempting to repeal the defunct IWR.

and again . . .

Why do you insist it was so wrong for Edwards to support and co-sponsor the IWR, yet think nothing of repealing it?

[Toots]

17. "move on" to what?

What issue do you feel is more important than War...Why should the War Resolution not be looked at in the light of day? Maybe those Democrats that voted for it in the first place may have not all the information they first thought they had....Maybe War should not be the first course of action but the last....Maybe it is time to put an end to this war...Let the Republicans justify their vote for War.......alongside their vote against war when Clinton was in office...Soundbites of before and after would do wonders...Let's get the debate rolling...or do you have something better in mind you wish them to "move on" toward?

[wtmusic]

58. Edwards has the healthy view

"I f*cked up. I blew it. I was wrong."

I have a lot more respect for Edwards and his tack, than Clinton thinking she can rewrite history by erasing her little boo-boo.

[rinsd]

62. That's the healthy view?

Being on the outside looking in while running for office with a mea culpa that happens to appeal to the party base vs. actually starting to rescind the damage to our country (not just this war) the bill Edwards COSPONSORED has wrought?

[wtmusic]

65. Yes

Nullifying the IWR will rescind no damage. Nullifying the IWR will accomplish exactly nothing.

[Carolina]

22. you must be

reading my mind, wtm. Ain't hindsight grand? Too bad HRC didn't listen to Robert Byrd's impassioned words of caution about the squatter and IWR back in 2002, back when it mattered, back before so much death and destruction.

Don't try a do-over stunt.

Just STOP the friggin war and bring the troops home NOW!

[bigtree]

8. why don't they DO something??!!

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[ElizabethDC]

10. Sounds excellent, hope it works. n/t

[TahitiNut]

12. Well, that will certainly bring back the dead and heal the maimed.

:eyes:

[ElizabethDC]

15. Well, at this point, who do you expect is going to be able to do that? n/t

[bigtree]

16. what it would do, if enacted, is take away the only legislative pretext Bush has for the occupation

no one is suggesting it will undo the damage BUSH has done to Iraq and to our troops.

[TahitiNut]

31. And "if enacted" is a huge 'if.'

Color me skeptical that it's anything but more cover and concealment. :shrug:

[bigtree]

33. You can paint ANY action by our majority with that brush

So, now pursuing legislation to hold Bush accountable is 'cover and concealment'

The lengths folks will go to put our Democrats down is disgusting.

[TahitiNut]

37. Uh-huh ... and what do I hear when I voice support for Kucinich's impeachment resolution?

:eyes:

[Swamp Rat]

61. Right here!

GEAUX KUCINICH!!! :patriot: :kick:

[Zhade]

13. Right. Clinton.

Hey, I'd be thrilled to believe it.

I don't.

Hoping to be wrong...

[blm]

21. I believe she'd do it. The campaign trail has been rougher than she thought.

So now she needs to do something dramatic, even if it goes against her previous plans.

[Carolina]

26. Yeah, a do-over

Too bad HRC didn't heed Byrd's words of caution and alarm about ceding such power to the executive, to the squatter back when it mattered, back before so much death and destruction ... gee, back before she was running for president!

I'm sick to death of enablers apologies, excuses, hindsight speechifying and NOW .. ta-da a novel idea, A Do Over!

[ryanmuegge]

36. I'm sure she was against it on principle (the IWR). Too bad she didn't vote that way.

Bush had too much political momentum after 9/11 for her to resist, though. She should have stuck to her principles.

[blm]

39. I don't think so. The time to fight Bush was when he said he HAD to go in - everyone

should have spread out over the airwaves and said "Don't go in now, because the IWR is working to prove through its weapon inspections and diplomatic measures that military force is NOT NEEDED." Bush had no reason to determine that force was needed to protect this nation's security as he claimed.

So, THAT was the time to call him out.

But, few did.

And those who did were pretty much drowned out by the cheerleaders.

[Carolina]

51. 'Should have'

yeah as in I wish I could have, should have. Too friggin late!

Twenty-one (21) Democratic senators voted NO along with Chaffee (R-RI, the sole republican to do so) and Jeffords (I-VT, the R turned Independent).

Byrd and Kennedy warned not only against ceding such power to * but also against haste ... Recall IWR was unfurled as a ploy leading up to the 2002 midterms, and a WH operative as much as said so. The information was there, too.

So where were HRC's principles? :shrug:

[ryanmuegge]

74. And those who voted against it need to be commended.

[Zhade]

54. I would whole-heartedly support such a move.

Call me skeptical - but please call me wrong if she does it.

I would LIKE to be wrong on this!

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. BRYD is on the Senate floor NOW!!!

[ElizabethDC]

19. Thanks! n/t

[AlCzervik]

20. watching now--thank you.

:hi:

[NewJeffCT]

23. The Constitution has a lot more to say

about Congress & war than it does the president & war.

[AlCzervik]

24. lol--Byrd made that point well.

[NewJeffCT]

30. well, I'm glad I'm on the same wavelength as Senator Byrd

Esp. since I can't watch or listen at work...

But, in regards to the president, it only says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"


With Congress, it is:

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[LSparkle]

25. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

No more resolution needed: all goals have been accomplished (no WMDs, Saddam dead).

I've been wondering why they didn't rip up the "blank check" long ago!

[Oreo]

27. President must redefine goals

and submit his plan.

[AlCzervik]

28. "resolution needs to be retired and archived"

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. He said "it's time to review the IRAQ plan." THIS IS IT.

Would this be by a Majority vote? Will the asshole repukes filibuster? What would happen next IF it would pass?

Byrd is saying if the psycho wants to continue this war he needs to make the case to Congress. What happens when the psycho says..."I don't have to go to Congress for anything."???

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. Is THIS what Biden meant when he said they were going to "shove it down his throat?"

:)

[AlCzervik]

35. "the clerk will call the roll" sheesh that was fast.

[ElizabethDC]

38. Clinton speaking on the floor now. n/t

[AlCzervik]

40. "Oct 11th 2007 to be expiration date for IWR"

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. HILLARY IS JOINING THEM IN THIS NULLIFICATION!! She's on the floor now!

INTERESTING!

[ElizabethDC]

42. Hillary: "If the president does not accept reality, it is time for the Congress to bring

the reality to him."

[Disturbed]

43. This falls into the "Better late than never" file.

The IWR no longer applies to Iraq. It is time that Congress fashion a new concept about Iraq.

[WinkyDink]

44. WHERE are you people seeing this??

[ElizabethDC]

45. C-SPAN 2. n/t

[WinkyDink]

46. My C-span2 is about drugs.

[ElizabethDC]

47. Hillary only spoke for a couple of minutes

after Byrd spoke for about 5. Then some other guy started talking about something else.

[WinkyDink]

48. Ah. Thanks! I thought I was losing it!

[blogslut]

49. Interesting

One can only hope for another avenue to make this president accountable.

[pnwmom]

50. Clear grounds for impeachment if this passes and Bush ignores it.

This will be interesting.

[Zhade]

55. Very good point. May my skepticism be found to be unfounded.

NT!

[DearAbby]

52. For whatever reason, I am happy it has started...

and those who say "you just don't get a do-over" are right as well. I dont view it as a do-over, it is setting the record straight, righting a wrong.

Yes, H.R.Clinton should have listened to Sen. Byrd, but it is her chance to correct that, I am happy if this is true, it is finally happening. This is a huge step to bringing our troops home. That is the goal that is most important.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Mothafucker Why Didn't I See This Thread Before??? I Missed It!!

What exactly is their plan?

[Swamp Rat]

63. .... it won't be long...

;)

[porphyrian]

67. Hmmm, let's see what happens...

:popcorn:

[Deb]

72. Remarks by Senators Byrd and Clinton link -

http://byrd.senate.gov/newsroom/news_may/end_war_resolution_remarks.html

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=273563


Thanks for posting this, I missed some good CSPAN today.