Dems Mull Plan to Change Iraq Resolution

[brooklynite]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats pledged renewed efforts Sunday to curtail the Iraq war, suggesting they will seek to limit a 2002 measure authorizing President Bush's use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said the proposal had little chance of succeeding. ``I think the president would veto it and the veto would be upheld,'' said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana.

A day after Republicans foiled a Democratic bid to repudiate Bush's deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq, Senate Democrats declined to embrace measures - being advanced in the House - that would attach conditions to additional funding for troops.

Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said Democratic senators would probably seek to capitalize on wavering Republicans to limit the ``wide-open authorization'' Congress gave Bush in 2002.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6424425,00.html

[truthisfreedom]

1. If the veto over-ride vote took place while a large number of pukes were out on the campaign trail

we might just have a chance.

[MGKrebs]

2. They should void it. It's based on false premises anyway.

False:

"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;'

False:
"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;"

False:
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;"

False:
"Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions"

Bush failed to comply:
"(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush either failed to comply or lied:
"(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

[rodeodance]

5. our troops are dying for a flimpsy piece of paper.

[brooklynite]

3. Doesn't work that way...

A veto requires 2/3 of the Senate. not 2/3 of those who show up.

[HuffleClaw]

4. how about FIRST making it a REAL bill instead of a bullshit 'non-binding' one?

and add the war with iran they KNOW bush is planning.

[rodeodance]

6. Democrats regroup after setback in Congress on Bush Iraq vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070218/pl_afp/usiraqcongress_070218184439;_ylt=AgmW5aqcDgjbWGuHtIh7JinMWM0F

Democrats regroup after setback in Congress on Bush Iraq vote

by Stephanie Griffith 2 hours, 39 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Democrats vowed to find new ways to pressure
President George W. Bush over his handling of the
Iraq war, after failing to break a Senate deadlock to hold a debate on his unpopular strategy.


Democrats regrouped from Saturday's legislative setback by floating new strategies to challenge the president's plan to introduce a "surge" of some 21,500 US combat forces into Iraq.

Top among the strategies being considered by Democratic lawmakers Sunday was new legislation that would revoke the October 2002 authorization which allowed Bush to invade Iraq.

US Senator Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that a vote on revoking Bush's war authority -- which he finds preferable to cutting funds to US troops outright -- was "probably the best approach."

[rodeodance]

7. Dems won control------but they 'faltered"

But they faltered in their first legislative attempt to hold the administration accountable for events in Iraq where more than 3,100 US troops have been killed since the March 2003 invasion.

Sixty votes were needed in the 100-seat Senate to move to a vote on a resolution condemning the administration's "surge" plan.

But only a total of 56 senators, including seven Republicans, voted Saturday to allow debate to start, four votes short of the minimum. Thirty-four senators voted against.

Meanwhile a non-binding resolution had better luck in the House of Representatives, passing Friday by a 246-182 vote.

Polls show more than half of all Americans support a non-binding resolution repudiating the president's troop "surge" proposal, while about three in five back proposals for withdrawing US troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

[Ignacio Upton]

8. Does anyone here now wish the GOP had used the nuclear option?

It was the filibuster that prevented this resolution from passing the Senate. Personally, I still believe that preserving the filibuster is important, but in the realm of "setbacks," this is hardly a problem, as this wasn't even a binding resolution.

[rocktivity]

10. Yes, it WAS a setback--but it certainly wasn't a failure

First of all, it lost by four votes, not forty. And now we have them on record for what they REALLY think, which puts the first nail in their coffin for '08! Most important, I'd rather see the Dems do this and lose than just lay down and die.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Ignacio Upton]

11. Good point

I'm glad that we were even able to get a majority to vote against the surge. Such a vote would have been impossible under GOP control. Also, if we really want to start pulling out, wouldn't repealing the IWR make more sense? At the very least, if our folks in Congress are afraid to do that, then they should at least modify the IWR to have a detailed time table for gradual withdrawal (two years to coincide with Bush getting out) and a provision that prohibits Bush from attacking Iran.

[sam sarrha]

12. It Wasnt a setback.. we have history on who supports this mess , we have 2 Democrats to get rid of

and we know which republicans they dont have photos of them with farm animals or something worse to blackmail them with

[sandnsea]

9. Obstructionist Filibustering Republicans

Why is this a win for Republicans, but when Democrats blocked Republican votes, it was undemocratic obstructionism.

:argh:

[MasonJar]

13. Just another good reason to elect lots of dem senators in '08.

[seasat]

14. It's almost like repugs are doing a reenactment of ...

the ending of the movie, Thelma and Louise.;)

[MadMaddie]

15. The only thing the Dems need to regroup on and rethink

is when are they going to to start the proceedings for impeachment...

At this point it will be a race between the Dems seeking impeachment and * trying to establish dictorial type powers.