De-authorize the war...now

C

Cypress

Well-known member
I've stated before, that while I think an immediate defunding of the war is a noble goal, it is possibly in effect, a pancea. It's not neccessarily a way that is really going to end the war and american bloodshed.

I think Bush -being the political animal that he is - will simply leave troops over there to die. Simply to make a political point. He will want to be able to point to the democrats and claim they are "killing the troops". It won't be in a blatant, obvious way. He'll go through some motions of abiding by congress' will. But, I don't doubt for a minute that he will intentionally leave troops in the field, underequipped and underfunded, to die in order to score political points. Hell, he sent them in intentionally under-equipped and under-manned for the job he gave them. All for political reasons, of course - he knew he couldn't sell an expensive war to congress: a war requiring that 300,000 or more troops invade iraq (as General Shinseki testified would be required). It was all a political calculation

I'm not sure if this way is any more realistic, but de-authorizing the war makes Bush constitutionally accountable. In effect, it makes him impeachable if he thwarts the will of congress and the american people.


De-Authorize the War Now, No Residual Troops

by Bill Richardson

I first called for de-authorization of the war in Iraq in January, and I have repeated that call all around the country -- because I believe immediate de-authorization and removing all of our troops from Iraq this year is the only way to end Bush's war.

Congress should de-authorize the war today and demand that the President begin redeploying our troops.

There would be no need to negotiate the withdrawal with the President, and he could not veto the resolution.

The time has has come for Congress to stand up to this President who refuses to recognize that his war is bleeding our military and weakening our country. He believes mere stubbornness is a foreign policy and that he can just ignore the will of the American people. In the interest of our national security, he must be stopped.

Congress has the ability to end this war under the War Powers Act -- let's not wait or waver while more people die. And de-authorizing the war should mean removing all our troops. Every last one.

This is essential, because our presence in Iraq worsens the violence and enables our enemies to portray us as imperialist occupiers. If we announce that we are getting out completely, we undercut this propaganda. We need to get all our troops out of the crossfire of this civil war.

Anything less than immediate de-authorization, and beginning the process to remove all troops, is not a real plan to end this war. I know this region well, and understand how people there see the world.

I have served as US Ambassador to the UN, President Clinton's Special Envoy, and as Secretary of Energy. I have been there. I even met with Saddam Hussein and secured the release of hostages. I applaud Senators Clinton and Byrd's steps to begin the process of getting us out of this disastrous war. But I urge them and their colleagues in Washington to commit to the full task at hand:

Immediate de-authorization, and the removal of all U.S. troops.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hummm...

Cypress said:
I've stated before, that while I think an immediate defunding of the war is a noble goal, it is possibly in effect, a pancea. It's not neccessarily a way that is really going to end the war and american bloodshed.

I think Bush -being the political animal that he is - will simply leave troops over there to die. Simply to make a political point. He will want to be able to point to the democrats and claim they are "killing the troops". It won't be in a blatant, obvious way. He'll go through some motions of abiding by congress' will. But, I don't doubt for a minute that he will intentionally leave troops in the field, underequipped and underfunded, to die in order to score political points. Hell, he sent them in intentionally under-equipped and under-manned for the job he gave them. All for political reasons, of course - he knew he couldn't sell an expensive war to congress: a war requiring that 300,000 or more troops invade iraq (as General Shinseki testified would be required). It was all a political calculation

I'm not sure if this way is any more realistic, but de-authorizing the war makes Bush constitutionally accountable. In effect, it makes him impeachable if he thwarts the will of congress and the american people.
Click to expand...



Interesting rhetoric there cypress..and what war did you serve in the' Battle of the Buldge'...'A-Valley' or was this what your professors told you..we lost before we started...I will be waiting with baited breath for your answer...check with the old professor first though..a new canned response would be appreciated!
 
Battleborne said:
Interesting rhetoric there cypress..and what war did you serve in the' Battle of the Buldge'...'A-Valley' or was this what your professors told you..we lost before we started...I will be waiting with baited breath for your answer...check with the old professor first though..a new canned response would be appreciated!
Click to expand...

The people who got us into Iraq were all college-educated and many came out of right wing "think tanks". Some of them are teaching classes as we speak, having moved out of government and academia after they made their mess.

Or did you think that the military started this war?
 
Non Military types got us into this war what ias the problem with non military types wanting us out of it ?
 
Battleborne said:
Interesting rhetoric there cypress..and what war did you serve in the' Battle of the Buldge'...'A-Valley' or was this what your professors told you..we lost before we started...I will be waiting with baited breath for your answer...check with the old professor first though..a new canned response would be appreciated!
Click to expand...


If you would restate this in standard, coherent English, I might be able to respond.
 
Battleborne said:
Interesting rhetoric there cypress..and what war did you serve in the' Battle of the Buldge'...'A-Valley' or was this what your professors told you..we lost before we started...I will be waiting with baited breath for your answer...check with the old professor first though..a new canned response would be appreciated!
Click to expand...

I'm with cypress, I have no idea what you're talking about here - seriously. What does cypress' serving in the battle of the bulge or anything else have to do with his statement that congress should defund the war?
 
The Dems in DC want this war to continue just as bad as Bush. If not, they would do just as Cypress suggests... they would either revoke authorization or they would defund the war (with the obvious exception of funds to bring the troops home). But if they do it now, they will lose the luster of the issue for next years election. Thus, given that they have no backbone, they will likely back down on the issue and keep it going.... so they can maintain their "issue" for 2008.
 
Well, if they do back down, I think I'll support a 3rd party candidate myself in the presidential election
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top