A Futile Suggestion
This is a gimmick, or Hillary’s version of “I voted for it before I voted against it.” It is sophomoric to suggest a cut-off of Bush’s authorization to use force on the five-year anniversary of that 2002 AUMF, and then tell the reporters gathered around you with a straight face that it would mean the soldiers would have to start coming home the next day. What’s even sadder is how quickly the rest of the other 2008 Democratic candidates piled on to the proposal, as if it was remotely possible and therefore had any chance of influencing Bush’s behavior.
Aside from the uncertainty caused by rescinding an authorization with troops in the theater of battle, there won't be 67 Senate votes to overturn the Bush veto, assuming the resolution even gets passed in the first place. If a majority of senators are now opposed to an immediate withdrawal, where do Hillary and Byrd think they'll find 20-25 GOP votes to overturn a Bush veto, if there was even a remote chance that such an override could trigger an immediate withdrawal? (You’ll need that many GOP votes to make up for the 7-8 Democrats who would also oppose an immediate withdrawal.)
I seriously question Hillary's judgment here. If you fancy yourself as a serious strategist and major player for the party in mapping out the endgame on Iraq, talking openly about unlikely legislation with problematic consequences undercuts your argument for higher office. Instead, Hillary should be focusing now on the damage done by this president to our military and what to do between now and the 2008 defense budget; and how to use that budget as a vehicle to end this occupation, save our military, and stabilize the region as well as possible.
As her negative numbers climb, Hillary seems to be lunging for anything that can help her with the base.