John Edwards on repealing the IWR: "statements can be an excuse for inaction"

[jsamuel]

"This is deja vu all over again. We saw it in Vietnam and we saw it earlier this year. We don't need any more non-binding resolutions or big statements; we need to end the war. I've been in Washington, so I understand the urge to make a statement - but in this situation, statements can be an excuse for inaction. Congress has a clear choice - they can talk about ending the war, or they can just end it. The only way for Congress to end the war is to cut off the money for it, and they should concentrate on doing just that. Anything else is just noise.

"As I said in February, the president exceeded his authority a long time ago. He's never been given the authority to use U.S. troops to police a civil war, so there's nothing to take away now. What's more, we know this just doesn't work. In 1971, Congress repealed the resolution authorizing the Vietnam War - and the war continued for four long years until Congress stopped funding it."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/4/122213/1021

[madfloridian]

1. Thanks.

Recommended.

He is going to have them yelling at him again. But hey, that's politics.

:-)

[sandnsea]

2. Illegally

What does he think Nixon's Illegal War means? And it did help. By the end of 1972, we only had 30,000 troops in Vietnam, even though Nixon continued his bombing campaigns and funding of South Vietnam.

[EVDebs]

3. Embedded War Powers resolution in the IWR requirements...

War Powers Resolution
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

Hmmm. 'clearly indicated' (truthful) 'situations' and 'circumstances' are required by law:

"SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

Patently, this is NOT the case with Iraq ! All based upon LIES, ergo...And besides, now the 'war' is over and we need to redefine the mission or get out since the mission has morphed into an occupation.

[mdmc]

4. If Edwards is Pres in 2009, will he admit defeat and withdraw?

The answer is no. He will "redeploy" or whatever, but he will stay the course until victory is achieved. He will show Bush how the "grown ups" do it.

A stable, pro-west, unified, democratic Iraq is still a couple of decades of hard work away. Anyone that thought it would be over by 2009 is unfit to serve.

The next president will inherit code pink and all the anti-war protesters.

[madfloridian]

5. This needs a kick.

:kick:

[jsamuel]

6. your right, it does

:kick: