Dems Seek to Limit U.S. Iraq Involvement

[cal04]

Even before they cast symbolic votes against the Iraq war, newly empowered congressional Democrats are clamoring for a chance to limit and eventually end U.S. involvement in a conflict that has killed more than 3,000 troops.

``Will I vote for a nonbinding resolution? Yes, but it's insufficient,'' says first-term Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, author of one of more than a dozen competing proposals that would impose a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

``I think eventually without a question that we will have the House move to that position,'' the former three-star admiral added. ``The country is already there.''

Sestak spoke in an interview just off the House floor, which will serve as a nationally televised stage this week for a marathon debate over Bush's war policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_go_co/binding_bush_4

[rodeodance]

1. i hear that it will FEB 28 before it is even brought up in the Senate again!

[ohio2007]

5. They will make a breakthrough announcement on Feb 29th

whooosh---

[NewJeffCT]

2. Please write, call or email your Congressional Rep

Tell them to do everything in their power to stop Bush's mad plans in Iraq and Iran.


This is from a fantastic email put out by the Center for American Progress on January 9, 2007:
>>>>
Can Congress do anything about it? Some have claimed that anything other symbolic action is unconstitutional. That's false. A wide range of legal experts agree there are a range of legal options available to Congress to stop, or place conditions on, any escalation in the war in Iraq. For example, John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer and one of the staunchest defenders of executive power, noted that "the power of Congress over the budget was absolute, to such an extent that lawmakers could end the war altogether if they chose." On the other side of the political spectrum, Georgetown University Law Professor Marty Lederman agrees. A new report from the Center for American Progress illustrates that Congress has acted repeatedly over the last 35 years to ensure the conduct of military action would "strengthen American national security and reflect the concerns and will of the American people." Congress has passed bills, enacted into law, that capped the size of military deployments, prohibited funding for existing or prospective deployment, and placed limits and conditions on the timing and nature of deployments.

CAPPING TROOP LEVELS: Congress has historically exercised authority to cap U.S. troop levels in foreign conflicts. In 1974, the Foreign Assistance Act "established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within 6 months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year." In 1983, the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act "required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon." In 1984, the Defense Authorization Act "capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400." All of this legislation was enacted into law.

RESTRICTING FUNDING: Congress has also restricted funding for certain military operations for U.S. troops. In 1970, the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law, "prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces." In 1982, the Defense Appropriation Act "prohibited covert military assistance for Nicaragua." In 1994, Congress restricted the use of funds "for United States military participation to continue Operations Restore Hope in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994."All of these funding restrictions were enacted into law. Read the report for more examples.

CONDITIONING FUNDING: Alternatively, Congress has authorized military action subject to various conditions. In 1991, Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq but conditioned it on the President "certifying first that means other than war would not result in Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions." In 2001, President Bush sought authority to respond to the 9/11 attacks to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Instead, Congress limited the authority to "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned authorized committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks.

[ohio2007]

3. " symbolic votes " " nonbinding resolution" is taking a stand on

quicksand.
Sorry, I only see what a pathetic bunch of time and money "poll watchers" we have in office. ALready they worry about re election spin.
How many "no show votes" will be recorded ?
Does anybody really care ?

[ShortnFiery]

4. Hey Congress, while you're at it, make it illegal for Bush to bomb IRAN!!! n/t

[Earth_First]

6. ...by passing a non-binding resolution and set to approve a 1.3 trillion dollar defense budget

*yawn*

[EVDebs]

7. The war with Iran has already begun in secret of course...

Blowup? America’s Hidden War With Iran
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/

Mentions secret US covert ops unit, probably successor to Task Force 121 (now possibly TF 6-26 or merged with another TF, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_145 ).

[Contrite]

8. SO GET TO IT ALREADY!

Jeez, Louise, we've been waiting since January for you to DO SOMETHING!

[Rydz777]

10. Right

They'll have to do it eventually. So better do it now and save the lives of our soldiers.

[Ivan Johnson]

9. How the Bush Administration is fueling Civil War in Iraq

MindWar:CivilWar