After the Veto

this is a variation on the fund in 3-month increments approach, which i think has the virture of simplicity, but anything along these lines is fine by me. keep moving the chains as the football fanatics say....

Bush will never, ever withdraw troops as long as he is preznit. Iraq is his signature issue after all. It would be admitting failure. When has Smirk ever admitted failure? He'll take everyone down with him, before admitting failure.

Podesta's approach is too timid. The only way Congress will end the war is with even more massive public support that Republicans can't ignore. Complex four-point plans and "responsible redeployment" aren't going to do it.

Democrats have to position themselves as the party that will bring the troops home. That's the simple message we need to repeat at every opportunity. Democrats want to bring the troops home now!

Most Americans couldn't care less if Iraq implodes. They want this war to be over.

After the veto, don't pass another supplementary appropriation. Pass a new bill that funds the immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

The reality is that Democrats aren't going to be able to unite around any such dramatic approach and this war isn't going to end before 2009 no matter how many four-point plans and 3-month appropriation debates we have. But politically, if Democrats want to solidify control in 2008, timidity and triangulation are the enemy.

The reason there's no "viable" way of ending the war, is that the consensus that the war should be abruptly ended is quite marginal, and the consensus that Congress should do nothing which might result in Congress being blamed if things go to Hell in Iraq after we leave approaches unanimity. They've got the power to end it anytime, they don't have the will. The war has to be ended in a way where somebody else gets blamed if things go wrong.

Great!! We elect a bunch of new Reps to Congress, and the Dem leadership turns to jello. Things will only change when we either get the corporate whores to stop being corporate whores, or we vote the corporate whores out.

Brett,

The position that the war should be abruptly ended may be quite marginal in Congress, but it's not among the general population. For example, in the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, taken April 10-12, 35% of Americans are in favor of immediate withdrawal and another 26% want the troops out by March. Fully 61% want this war over within the year. (Sorry, I don't know how to provide the link, but it's on the CNN website.)

Yes, Iraq is going to go to hell when we leave, but that will happen whether or not we stay there 1 year or 2. Yes, neocons will try to put the blame on Congress and the Democrats, but that's going to happen whenever we leave. Democrats and Congress really have nothing to lose by advocating a position 61% of Americans favor.

Re: Most Americans couldn't care less if Iraq implodes. They want this war to be over.

If an Iraq imposion leads to a huge spike in oil prices Americans will care very much and the GOP will be handed a gold-plated club with which to beat the dems in 2008. From a very cynical, political POV the war shoudl continue just as it has been until the next election when the Democrats can use it to their advantage.

I cannot believe that total lack of leadership among the Democrats. Calling anything a reployment is the worst form of leadership. If elected politians want the U.S. out of Iraq, they should say so in non uncertain terms. Using weasel words is a sign of weakness.

Using polls as an excuse to leave is also a sign of weakness.

The reason to leave Iraq is that it is in the best interest of the U.S. to leave. Using any other reasons is a sign of weakness and will result in more failure in the long run.

The war's not going to end before the 2008 election. Democrats will be able to use it to their advantage.

As for Iraq imploding, I think we need to make a distinction between "selling" the withdrawal and executing the withdrawal. I hope our leaders execute the withdrawal responsibly and competently to do what they can to reduce the risk that Iraq will implode. I fear that Iraq's fate is largely out of our hands no matter how long we stay.

As for selling the withdrawal, the message needs to be simple. Harry Reid was right. This war is over. It's time to bring the troops home. We shouldn't be afraid to say so, because an increasing majority of Americans agree.

Matt:

That just is not true. The Congress can NOT fund the war and no it does not need 67 votes.

You are writing from ignorance.

I have written extensivedly on the subject at TalkLEft and it is clear you do not kjnowe what you are talking about on this issue.

Bone up next time.

"there doesn't appear to be a viable way for anti-war congressfolk to simply use their authority to mandate both a beginning point for withdrawal and an endpoint but, well, there just isn't one"

That's not what separation of powers expert Louis Fisher says or Russ Feingold or American history. Feingold says, "the congressional debate over Somalia 14 years ago has some surprising parallels. Without question, Somalia in 1993 differs in many ways from Iraq in 2007, from the scope of the mission to the reason for that mission in the first place. What hasn't changed, however, is Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission..The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops "

The plan by Podesta et al is totally reasonable, and is certain to result in 150,000 American troops being in Iraq on election day, 2008. The Democrats have unilaterally surrendered to the Republican framing: Defunding = betraying the troops. The debate, like the Wizards' season, is over.

Matthew:

I'm puzzled by your claim that there "doesn't appear to be a viable way for anti-war congressfolk to simply use their authority to mandate both a beginning point for withdrawal and an endpoint but, well, there just isn't one."

In a recent NYT editorial which many legal scholars would say greatly understated Congress' war powers, Jeffrey Rosen said, "There is little dispute that Congress could, if it had the political will, end the war in Iraq tomorrow by using its power over appropriations to cut off funds to the troops."

Almost every commentator I've read grants that Congress can end the war by use of its power of the purse. Even John Yoo says so. Rosen says, "According to Professor Yoo, Congress could immediately cut funds, or could order a phased withdrawal by authorizing a fixed amount of money each month for specified numbers of troops." Rosen further quotes Yoo saying, "He [the president] would have to comply."

Yet you say there just isn't a way for Congress to do this. Care to back up your rather radical claim with some actual argument?

Matthew:

23 eminent law professors, including Bruce Ackerman, Erwin Chemerinsky, Michael Dorf, Harold Koh, Martin Lederman, and Laurenece Tribe say that you're wrong. They conclude:

"Thus, Congress may limit the scope of the present Iraq War by either of two mechanisms. First, it may directly define limits on the scope of that war, such as by imposing geographic restrictions or a ceiling on the number of troops assigned to that conflict. Second, it may achieve the same objective by enacting appropriations restrictions that limit the use of appropriated funds. Indeed, the reason that the Constitution explicitly limits appropriations for the Army to two years is in order to ensure that Congress oversees ongoing military engagements."

What do you know that they don't?

Matthew:

Eminent scholar Louis Fisher disagred with you in histestimony before COngress in January. In addition to the power of the purse Fisher notes:

"Congress has options other than a continuation of funding or a flat cutoff. In 1986, Congress restricted the President’s military role in Central America by stipulating that U.S. personnel “may not provide any training or other service, or otherwise participate directly or indirectly in the provision of any assistance, to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance pursuant to this title within those land areas of Honduras and Costa Rica which are within 20 miles of the border with Nicaragua.”33 In 1991, when Congress authorized President George H. W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, the authority was explicitly linked to UN Security Council Resolution 678, which was adopted to expel Iraq from Kuwait.34 Thus, the legislation did not authorize any wider action, such as using U.S. forces to invade and occupy Iraq. In 1993, Congress established a deadline for U.S. troops to leave Somalia. No funds could be used for military action after March 31, 1994, unless the President requested an extension from Congress and received prior legislative priority."

What is it you or John Podesta have discovered that Professor Fisher missed in a lifetime of scholarship on this question?

You know, some people seem to confuse the claim that a particular course of action isn't politically viable with one that it isn't constitutionally permissible.

Despite support in the polls for bringing the war to a close, there aren't enough votes, yet, for a simple cut-off. This is because a simple cut-off carries huge risks, and not everyone is ready to believe that public support will hold up if those risks play out. The political situation will improve over time.

It's of course too bad that people have to continue to die while the American political consensus lines up, but the only actual choices are (a) a failed push to end the war now or (b) rising pressure which ends the war sooner than Bush would do it on his own. There is no (c) end war now, and thus pursuing (b) rather than (a) isn't sacrificing anyone.

Podesta's protest - "Congress has shared power on Iraq policy" - is as funny as it is gutless.

Congress *can* have some power on Iraq policy - yeah, the Constitution says so. Unfortunately, as long as Congress only does what George W. Bush *lets* it do - which is a path Podesta and the Congressional Democratic leadership seem intent on taking - then no, Congress, doesn't have the power to do jack-shit on Iraq policy, *because* *they* *are* *not* *claiming* *it* *from* *Bush*. There's a quote from someone who was a minority partner in the ownership of the New York Yankees who said, "Nothing is as limited as being a limited partner with George Steinbrenner." Same goes for people who expect to "share" power with George W. Bush.

Goddamn, but DC Democrats will do anything but confront Bush. And too many of their friends will do anything but stop enabling them.

To summarize:

1. The war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. It's been a devastating blow to our national interest. It's taken more than 3,300 American lives, drained hundreds of billions of dollars from the US treasury, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thrown the country into a bloody civil war that is likely to embroil the entire region. And the longer we stay, the worse it will get.

2. Ending this war and bringing our troops home is the right thing to do for the country.

3. Congressional Democrats have the power but not the political will to bring the troops home even though the majority of Americans want this war to end. They're afraid that public support may evaporate in the future.

Is it any wonder that so many of us are frustrated and angry at the political and moral cowardice of the DC Democrats?

CharleyCarp:

What's not viable about NOT passing funding for the war?

Without newly authorized funds, at any time Bush's war comes to a stop within a few months. What with filibusters, the non-cooperation of the Leadership (who I believe could simply not schedule Iraq funding for a vote), and the inability of the Republicans to organize a majority of their own, I think it is viable.

We announce a deadline a year in advance, make it the focus of a systematic attack on Republican incompetence and perfidy, and then end the war like a large majority of the American people prefer.

Then, having shown some toughness, we destroy the Republican brand, holding them accountable for having gotten us into this disaster, and win big in 2008. Your alternative is to gum it to death, appear to have no better ideas than the Republicans, take co-ownership of the Republican disaster, and muddle along, maybe or maybe not retaining our majority.

****************************************

--3000 dead Americans
--600,000 dead Iraqis
--more terrorists, not less
--national security harmed, not helped
--our international reputation destroyed
--a strong precedent set for executive overreach and lying
--torture
--$500 billion wasted, another $1.5 trillion circling the bowl
--al-Qaeda strengthened, resupplied, and receiving on-the-job training

This policy is a disaster. Not a failure. A disaster. We need to jerk the wheel out of the hands of the guy who is driving us over the cliff. We need to stop the bleeding and defeat the neo-McCarthyites who foisted this disaster upon our country. The public supports us. Its time to do the right thing.

wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thanks very much

perde

jaluzi perde

stor perde

dikey perde

iso belgesi

iphone kılıfı

süper site

kozmetik

kolonyalı mendil

kolonyalı mendil

dolum

güvenlik kamerası

kamera

süper

sohbetim

joyturk tekstilkent joytürk mIRC Chat Video poşet imalat ambalaj paketleme iso güvenlik ıslak mendil

suggests a simpler explanation: white people in the South have more day to day experience with blacks on average than white people in the North."

And thanks to Steve "junk DNA" Sailer for that textbook definition of real, not symbolic, racism.

erience with blacks on average than white people in the North."

And thanks to Steve "junk DNA" Sailer for that textbook definition of real, not symbolic, racism.

And thanks to Steve "junk DNA" Sailer for that textbook definition of real, not symbolic, racism.

thank you

thank you very much very good....

thanks

youtube
yuotube
yotube
youtobe
video sitesi
video siteleri
izlesene
yutup
www.youtube
youtube izle
video izle

thanks. :D:D