Senate Dems move to limit Iraq mission

[cal04]

Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combatting al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

The officials, Democratic aides and others familiar with private discussions, spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.

(snip)
The decision to try to limit the military mission marks the next move in what Reid and other Senate war critics have said will be a multistep effort to force a change in Bush's strategy and eventually force an end to U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old war.

updated
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070223/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Senators aim to revise Iraq mission, reduce troops
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070223/pl_nm/iraq_usa_congress_dc_1

[Atman]

1. As if...

...Bush will pay any attention to any crummy limits on his power to do whatever the fuck he wants.

.

[AzDar]

2. Just heard KO break this live...excellent news! n/t

[Peace Patriot]

3. Excellent! This is a huge fight for our democracy, and people should stop predicting

failure. I sympathize with cries of despair, God knows! But every time something positive is tried--to stop the war, to end the Bush-Cheney tyranny--somebody immediately jumps in and says it won't work--Bush will veto it, Lieberman will block it, Bush will pardon Libby, Cheney will bomb Iran, etc., etc., etc.

Sometimes I've been guilty of it myself. And I apologize for those moments when I myself can only see the dark side. We need to struggle against these negative predictions. I think they are the shadow in our minds from the relentless war and fascist propaganda that we are subjected to.

OBVIOUSLY, these things are going to come down to a contest of the "balance of powers" and restoring Constitutional government. That is a NECESSARY crisis. OBVIOUSLY, Bush will want to veto any bill that tries to limit his dictatorial powers. But will he be able to? And how pissed off will Congress be at that point? And what ELSE might be happening at the same time? All sorts of things could be happening that would strengthen Congress' hand. For instance, what if Cheney is being indicted, when the vote on limiting the mission in Iraq occurs? (If you've been following the Libby trial, you know that that is a possibility.) What if China, Russia and India announce an initiative to stabilize Iraq, and prevent a US war on Iran? (They met recently with that sort of agenda.) The point is to keep the pressure on the Bush Junta in every way possible, while seeking to outmaneuver the war profiteers and Bush "pod people" who are blocking reform.

I applaud this initiative. I am going to resist predicting success or failure. It is clearly the right thing for Congress to be doing, in response to the overwhelming will of the American people that this war be stopped, and any widened war prevented. They MUST keep trying. They must never give up on this. This is the core issue of Bush-Cheney crime--and the core issue of American politics and government, and it will continue to be for decades to come, touching every aspect of our lives.

So hammer away at it, Congress! BE our Congress!

[GuvWurld]

6. Just curious here, PP, how do you distinguish...

You ask that predictions of failure be withheld and so I shall abide. Since you gave a rather blanket apology for past bouts of pessimism, I want to know in general terms how you expect People to tell the difference between a strong plan, a lesser plan worth giving a chance, and a delusion we're fools to believe in? Perhaps more than just being able to differentiate between these varying degrees of potential, how do you expect People to calibrate a response appropriate to the proposal?

Whether intended or not, your message here seems to encourage acting as if all ideas fall into the strong plan category. I don't see how that could be healthy or helpful, nor do I think that's what you really meant. Is this something you can clarify for me please?

Peace,
GuvWurld

[Peace Patriot]

7. GuvWurld, I don't at all mean to stop thoughtful criticism of this very

compromised and not very representative Congress. And cries of despair are understandable. But the latter often seem to inadvertently--and maybe in some cases, deliberately--play into the fascist corporate program of constantly reinforcing our powerlessness, our demoralization, our disenfranchisement and loss of sovereignty as a people. This is the war profiteering corporate news monopolies' only propaganda victory--making us feel powerless. They have convinced no one that this war is right--in fact, they've done the opposite; they've convinced 74% of the American people that it is wrong, which I attribute in part to the boring, banal nature of propaganda. But here we are, with that huge opposition to the war, and you ask almost anybody, and they don't know what to do. So when somebody DOES something--even if it's lame--instead of encouraging people to take action to support this and even stronger measures, they say things like, Bush will veto it.

So what? That is so beside the point. It seems like a smart, "in the know" remark, but it is not. And it does not help push the tide of history, it tries to stop change dead in its tracks. Give up! Despair! It's all corrupt! It's all worthless! Bush has all the power. Bush is an autocrat, and will do whatever he likes. Well, maybe not. Who knows what will happen? We must keep trying. For Godssakes, look at South America, where transparent elections and grass roots activism are changing the face of the continent.

And I would certainly not be against a riproaring analysis of Congress as a worthless venue of citizen action, if the analyst was proposing a better venue. (For instance, I think election reform can be much more effective at the state/local level, than in Congress. Maybe antiwar activism, too--for instance, state legislature impeachment initiatives, or movements to demand that governors recall our National Guard.) I am just wary of one and two sentence dismissals of other peoples' work--whether by Congress members or their staffs or the citizen activists who are pressuring them. I see this much too often at DU--in many different forms. And if it isn't a disinformation campaign, it feeds the purposes of one. "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here! The People count for nothing! Get used to it!"

I've seen this "easy despair" syndrome on too many important issues--and I've seen these instant commenters jump in, right at the opening of a thread, once too often, with a quick disheartening message, not to realize that we are dealing with a SYNDROME, in some cases--probably the result of over-exposure to corporate news--and possibly deliberate sabotage of potentially useful initiatives or ideas.

That is all that I was reacting to--not to thoughtful and useful discussion. I was reacting, in particular, to Atman's comment (above): "As if...Bush will pay any attention to any crummy limits on his power to do whatever the fuck he wants." Yes, this is true of Bush. What then? What should the course of action be? How do we help people re-empower themselves? How do we get our democracy back? Are we making progress? Are we not? If not, what then? To simply say that Bush will do "whatever the fuck he wants" and leave it at that, is either a very conservative or a very depressing and disheartening comment--and even an untrue one. If Bush could do anything he wants, he would be in Iran already. If Bush could do anything he wants, Libby would not be on trial for perjury. If Bush could do anything he wants, tribes of youths in Nazi uniforms would be parading through the streets, saluting him on their way to the "Great Crusade," and you and I would be in jail. If Bush could do anything he wants, South American leftists would be suffering torture and death, and not being elected presidents of their countries. So why spread this death wish? Why not, instead, suggest BETTER ways to outmaneuver and defeat Bush and the Corporate Reich?

You hear me, Atman? We need to defeat our negative predictions, and take up the spirit of Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela, and Evo Morales, and Rigoberta Menchu, and Cindy Sheehan, and GuvWurld, and the crew at Fireloglake, and Truthout.org, and TruthIsAll.net, and NarcoNews, and Scoop.co.nz, and all the wonderful people engaged in the struggle for American democracy, and FIGHT BACK!

[GuvWurld]

9. Further consideration of powerlessness

Peace Patriot, thank you for indulging me and expanding on your original comments. I know you would not set out to curtail expression or the exchange of ideas and that we're really just talking about how to inspire and encourage the most useful and effective tactics and messaging. This takes discipline and creativity, just for starters, as we are also talking about how to train ourselves to not let impulsive reactions result in distracting messaging or support for unworthy causes (note that is a general statement not directed at the OP).

With that said, I want to challenge you to think some more about where our powerlessness comes from. Certainly there are powerful interests trying to make us feel powerless and no doubt it works, to different degrees on different people. But this doesn't just come from government, media and corporate or "special interests." I think your point is that perpetual naysayers contribute too. And I will add that even the yaysayers contribute when the target of their action or support is one which relies upon the hope of broken institutions operating as originally intended. By this I mean that I think it is futile to attempt to influence Congress.

There are a few reasons I say this. First and most directly is that all the effort directed at lobbying a representative is literally giving away whatever limited power we may have in the first place. There is no guarantee that our influence will sway the rep's behavior. And even if it does there is no assurance that the one person can win over a majority of their chamber. And if they do there is nobody stopping a signing statement from negating everything, or a "quaint" justice department from upside down enforcement.

And even if all these chips fall our way, there is no magic bullet legislation or other act of Congress that can completely erase the past six years and make us what America is supposed to be. In other words, every time we get pulled into Beltway thinking, we become powerless of our own choosing because the best case scenario will still leave what I see as the most necessary changes unaddressed. These would include: local control of everything with an emphasis on non-cooperation with federal mandates counter to the interest of the people; a demonstrable, passionate and universal commitment to transparency and accountability that begins with local governments taking seriously their oath to protect and defend the Constitution; and the overlap of the first two which I see as a growing recognition of the federal government's complete irrelevance.

In this scenario WE make THEM powerless by acting as if we have the power inherently, which of course we do. What is it we really want, after all? It is just fair elections, or peace, or universal health care or breathable air? Any one of those would be a significant victory and achievement that would still leave so many other major issues unresolved. So I submit that what we really want is a different way of life in which all these things we know we are entitled to actually exist as we would prefer. To change our way of life, I recommend starting where we live, giving careful attention to healing community rifts, particularly around establishing shared understanding of what has happened (I'm thinking along the lines of Truth and Reconciliation hearings). When we use the phrase "keeping our eye on the ball," it is these types of changes and initiatives that must remain our focus despite the distracting allure of the latest toothless excuse on the Hill. When we make choices like that, then we are really exercising our power rather than giving it away or allowing other interests to intimidate us into feeling powerless.

[ixion]

4. kicked and recommended

:woohoo: :patriot: :kick:

[cal04]

5. Democrats Seek to Revise 2002 War Authorization

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

"If you strictly limit a commander's ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who personally lodged his concerns with Murtha.

In both chambers, Democratic lawmakers are eager to take up binding legislation that would impose clear limits on U.S. involvement in Iraq after nearly four years of war. But Democrats remain divided over how to proceed. Some want to avoid the funding debate altogether, fearing it would invite Republican charges that the party is not supporting the troops. Others take a more aggressive view, believing the most effective way to confront Bush's war policy is through a $100 billion war-spending bill that the president ultimately must sign to keep the war effort on track.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201743.html

[Peace Patriot]

8. Further thoughts on GuvWurld's question about how to assess proposals,

as strong or not strong, worthy of support, not worthy of support, etc. I think I've dealt with the question of simply crying "Bush will veto it!" (Then what?) Also, the Democrats who are trying to do something certainly KNOW that that is a threat. But politics is far more than just winning votes, or losing/winning a veto. It's a process of the development of ideas. Every move they make to curtail Bush lays groundwork for dealing with this situation not just now but in the future. How DO we deal with out-of-control presidents? How DO we prevent wars of choice? And whatever the immediate success of such Democratic moves, the IDEAS are made current that we CAN and we MUST curtail such presidential power. Debate has uses far beyond immediate effects.

I think it is quite reasonable to say that the Democrats' proposals in Congress don't go nearly far enough. And it is a question to any advocate of the people just how far down the road of inadequate proposals you want to go. And it's important to ask strategic questions about that. What do we gain by a Democratic proposal to limit the mission in Iraq--to rewrite the IWR, limiting Bush's power, and aiming policy at withdrawal--rather than going all out and rescinding that damnable, unconstitutional resolution? What do we gain from proposals to cut off funding for Iraq--rather than doing what really needs to be done--a huge cut of the military budget, say by 90%, down to a true defensive posture (to make wars of choice impossible)? What do we gain by investigating Halliburton, and trying to get some of our money back--rather than, say, pulling their corporate charter and seizing their assets for the common good?

Well, we don't gain much--by the lesser proposals. We still have war profiteers running the country, and an in-progress disaster in Iraq. Is that what the Democrats want? Some of them, maybe. On the other hand, limited proposals to end the war are a hell of a lot better that no proposals to end the war (what we had before). At least it is acknowledged that the war is a disaster, and this could be the first building block of an eventual drastic re-thinking of the "military-industrial complex" and its destruction of both our democracy and world peace. Think strategically, yes, but think BIG. Is this proposal just hype, just political posturing, just more crap from corrupt politicians? I'm open to that, or to any reasonable, helpful analysis. I don't think it's crap. I think it's a step back from the war, however tentative it may be. And it's tentative nature--with 74% of the American people against this war--is a reflection of our still very, very compromised election system. So probably what WE need to be doing--instead of descrying how tentative it is (or predicting how useless it will be--i.e., Bush will just veto it), is, either, 1) working more diligently on transparent elections, or 2) working more diligently on impeachment (say, in support of state legislators who are introducing bills of impeachment.) (It only takes one state legislature's passage, to submit it to the US House.)

We have a compromised Congress, not very representative of the American people. Agreed. But it's more representative than the previous one. That's progress. What can we do to bolster efforts to stop the war, in the current Congress, as it is? Not the Congress we desire, but the one that we have. And what can we do to make the NEXT Congress more representative (and to make the next presidential election, including the primaries, MORE transparent, if full transparency is not going to be possible)?

We have to be bold, and far thinking, and realistic and strategy-minded at the same time. The corruption in our government was not created in a day, and will not be undone in a day. Hint: The South Americans have been working on transparent elections for more than decade--and it is only now bearing fruit in the election of true representatives of the people. It may take us a decade, and we may have a tattered ruin of a country before we are able to restore order here. But restore order we WILL. I have no doubt of that at all. And it may happen sooner rather than later, if we keep our peckers up, as they used to say. True grit and all that. No more despair! We've only just begun to fight.

[GuvWurld]

10. Assess this

I guess you wrote this post #8 while I was working on #9 above. Anyway, what I have to say here will be brief and should bridge all these.

It is the stated policy of the US not to negotiate with terrorists.

By any definition you want to use, the current administration meets the criteria to be described as terrorists.

All efforts in Congress that keep the parameters of status quo intact and continue to treat our executive branch officers as if they are a legitimate government would seem to ignore both the reality of who these war criminals really are and how Congress is obligated to treat them.

We must stop enabling the enablers. They must all be deemed irrelevant or we will go on forfeiting our power to them willingly.