I don't see where Edwards endorsed this. He has his own preferences, most recently Reid-Feingold.
Posted by hell's kitchen at May 4, 2007 05:25 PMSteve makes a lot of sense on this, but still. I remember how the Dems taunted Bush in 2002: You can't use force without our authorization. So Bush sent a force authorization bill to the Hill and the Dems voted for it. That was a sad day. I couldn't believe that they did that, but they did. Everyone knew that it meant war notwithstanding all the fake diplomacy Bush was using.
Now the senators might vote on rescinding that mistake, and despite Steve's sensible argument, it just might be the self-cleansing exercise these folks need to make it less likely that they'll do it again. Just Senator Clinton's way of saying yes, this was a mistake. Of course she'll blame it on George Tenet or anyone but herself but nevertheless it might make her and others think before they do it again.
It won't bring the troops home tomorrow but it does keep the Congress in the driver's seat and it does keep the issue alive on a new angle, and the more angles there are the better the chance of (1) keeping Bush on the defensive, (2) creating more Repub defections and (3) making the Blue Dogs (in the House) take a stand other than stay the course.
Let's try a little "lunging", keep the pot stirred, and force George to respond to a new attack. Just when the chimp was sharpening his arguments on timelines here comes a flanking attack on use of force. You go, Hill.
I tell you something else, it'll be the women that change America for the good. The men won't do it. It'll be Pelosi, Lee, Woolsey and --who woulda thunk it-- maybe Clinton. We'll see. Isn't this exciting? Yes, keep that pot stirred. It's the girls against the guys, and if strategy doesn't do it there's always the Lysistrata approach.
Posted by Don Bacon at May 4, 2007 05:26 PMHill is hopelessly compromised and I for one would like to see women held to the same standards as men, to wit, MERIT. Ms Pelosi has merit to her toenails but I am sick and tired of fools rushing to endorse a woman in any sphere merely because of her gender.
Hillary is doing a reasonably good job as a senator despite cowardly lapses like going along with the most imbecilic war we have ever blundered into.
Susan Faludi is my feminine role model icon, brilliant, alert and incisive.It is deeply unfair to amazing women like Ms Pelosi to exault a scheming focus group critter.
Moreover, Senators have a crappy track record for presidential electability. This may well be skewed in the aftermath of Bu$hco when the Democrats could probably run a cat and have it elected, but still.
Posted by Chris Rich at May 4, 2007 07:16 PMDon, I've often dreamed that we could pull a Lysistrata, but there are too many women who won't play along. Number one, women enjoy sex as much as men, though our identity doesn't depend upon it like a man's does; and number two, eventually people who are denied something they really, really want, and think they're entitled to have, end up taking it by force. History has many examples of this fact, sadly.
As for Hillary's announcement to rescind the AUMF, of course it's a calculated move. But she's a candidate for president in one of the most important races for decades - shouldn't we be seeing fireworks or at least attempts to stand out from the crowd? And what about all of the people who, ten minutes after the Dems took control of congress, were demanding they sunset the AUMF? Is it a bad move just because it's coming from Hillary?
I agree with Don here, too:
it does keep the Congress in the driver's seat and it does keep the issue alive on a new angle
These things may seem symbolic to we, the news junkie commie pinko bloggers, but the greater mass of voters out there don't know that rescinding the order won't do anything to stop the war, all they care about is the week of headlines and the furor it creates. If it does create a furor. So far, progressive blogs don't seem to be talking about it right now.
Granted, the USA story is just exploding with evidentiary goodness, and I'm sorry, but Hillary just can't compete with Paris going to jail. Three people so far have relayed that vital bit of news to me today - they don't know from Hillary on a Friday. We'll see if the usual Faux "news" screechers pick it up - that'll give the story the exposure she totally needs.
I am sick and tired of fools rushing to endorse a woman in any sphere merely because of her gender.
I have to ask, who's doing that, Chris? There's a lot of talk about whether women will support Hillary because she's a woman, but I don't see any numbers yet to prove this is true. And in my experience, most women have to fight twice as hard as a man to be accepted in positions of authority, by both men and women - Faludi discusses this in Backlash, I believe.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 4, 2007 07:34 PMWhat has Hillary Clinton actually accomplished? Beyond that, what did Bill Clinton accomplish? And of those few things he did accomplish that moved us forward accomplish during his tenure as president, how much survives? Very, very little. It's gotten to the point, hasn't it, where praising Clinton accomplishments that got us nowhere beyond the decline we've seen since Bush in 2000 is delusion?
If there's a genuine Hillary somewhere deep down inside the managed one we see on the surface, and whose proposals we will be forced to consider repeatedly over the next ten months, it's hard to find her. I'll be thrilled if she wins; we could do much, much worse; but I lost faith in the Clinton brand a long time ago. I think the Edward's team's got the goods now.
Posted by NealB at May 4, 2007 07:42 PMNealB, I'm totally with you. I love me some Edwards. But until the conventions, I want to be entertained. Dance, candidates!! Dance for me!
Posted by iamcoyote at May 4, 2007 07:46 PM"We must lead by building a 21st century military [that] stays on the offense."
"No President should ever hesitate to use force—unilaterally if necessary—to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened."
"America must lead...by...securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction."
[Terrorists] operate freely in the...disconnected corners of our interconnected world...[U]ngoverned states...have become the most fertile breeding grounds for transnational threats like terror."
Sounds like President Bush doesn't it? The quotes come from a Democratic Neocon.
Posted by peter at May 4, 2007 08:27 PMHey, on balance I'm no Hillary fan, but on this proposal she's not reading from the AIPAC script for once. She's maybe listening to Bill and in any case is striking out with a zinger. Credit where credit's due. Call it a knee-jerk reaction.
Hey #2, if coyote and I agree on something (a first?) it's gotta be good to go.
Hey #3, Chris--what other "fools" are you lumping me in with? The ones who are "rushing to endorse a woman in any sphere merely because of her gender"? Actually I think you were temporarily drunk on some verbal excess. I'll forgive you THIS time. I'm assuming you're a sensitive man and you were probably hurt by the possibility that a woman might have capabilities that you lack, like understanding and compassion. You'll get over it. You'd better. There are more of them then there are of us, remember. P.S. Don't ever suggest that I'm a fool again.
Posted by Don Bacon at May 4, 2007 09:00 PMI don't know if there is such a thing as "the" base of the Democratic Party, but in the great mass of activists and high-interest, high-turnout voters, there are many people who just do not trust Hillary Clinton.
The right-wing hatred of Hillary is irrational, not related to anything but the cartoon drawn of her to weaken her husband's presidency. The corporate press/media's embrace of this cartoon is nothing different from its embrace of the War on Gore. There is almost nothing that Hillary could have done or can do.
The distrust, resentment and outright dislike of Hillary among Democrats, though, is directly related to the things she has said and done as senator. For that she has only herself to blame.
Posted by James E. Powell at May 4, 2007 09:08 PMthe Lysistrata approach.
What next, The Frogs? I seem to remember performing in the original. Xanthias, don't you know. I was quite acclaimed in those days. "Brekekekex, ko-ax, ko-ax."
In another one of my former lives I was in Stalingrad. Wrong side. Things look eerily familiar in Baghdad.
Hillary is playing the odds, as this is just another position of hers that has a certain probablity of garnering support. They are, all of them, -Edwards included- beyond all else, politicians. They would sell their souls and blow a donor for money if it assured them a victory. Souls have no value during elections, otherwise Chelsea's would have been sold long ago.
Posted by phidipides at May 4, 2007 10:10 PM...there won't be 67 Senate votes to overturn the Bush veto, assuming the resolution even gets passed in the first place.
Does it require a Presidential signature?
I'm not sure on this point. I hear it was a resolution, not a bill. Resolutions don't need presidential signatures.
Another point: the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war -- Presidential signature is not required.
As I say, I'm not sure -- worth investigating.
Posted by anony at May 4, 2007 11:35 PMUnless you overturn the original AUMF from 2001 that empowered the GWOT, you will accomplish nothing.
All that will happen in either case is a Supreme Court challenge to settle where war powers finally reside after Congress either passes a war resolution or abrogates responsibility through AUMF.
this is all new ground for our country as we have never had anything like this sort of fiasco perpetuated by so incompetent, petulant, and deceitful a President as George W. Bush.
Posted by boilerman10 at May 4, 2007 11:54 PMBill 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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/deauthorize-the-war-now_b_47690.html
I think the 'short leash' supplemental funding is the best approach. If you fund a short supplemental with some readiness benchmarks and equipment reset you could leave the March 31, 2008 date in place.
Since Bush is the CEO President start treating him like the CEO President - give him Quarterly Budgets. Fund the Iraq Supplemental thru June 30, 2007 (Q1+Q2) and force him to come back each quarter thereafter.
Until Dems start to flake off GOP support you can't 'not fund the War'. Republicans have legislative tools as well and a GOP discharge petition in the House to provide funds has a better chance of passing then Hillary Clinton's withdrawal of the 2002 AUMF or John Edward's 'Just Don't Fund it' approach.
I think it's essential to the country to resolve the Iraq War together as a country, not as a political gambit. That means 67 votes to affirmatively end the war IMHO. Let's leave this backdoor lie of a war through the front door openly and honestly in a way that any 3rd grader civics student can understand - Congress voted to end the war, Bush vetoed it, Congress overrode the veto. The End.
You need 16 votes in the Senate. If you get 4 votes with each new appropriation* under 'short leash' the Iraq War ends in 9 months.
*I'm counting the first 'short leash' supplemental for Q1+Q2 '07, a supplemental for Q3, a supplemental for Q4, and the 2008 Defense Appropriation with the Iraq War on budget.
Posted by joejoejoe at May 5, 2007 01:58 AM"Souls have no value during elections, otherwise Chelsea's would have been sold long ago."
...they did sell her twin brother Chucky to win in 92.
As you already suggest, nothing is as it seems. Perhaps Hill is imagining that rescinding authorization to use force will convince the administration to sign the funding bill. But It's hard to believe any sane person would do that.
My guess is that it's a ploy to start the process of impeachment. If the AUMF is rescinded and Bush fails to wthdraw troups there will be no question that he is proceding without Congressional authority. It will then be up to the courts to decide whether Congress has the authority to stop a war that they never actually authorized in the first place. I'm sure the administration is counting on a ruling that would say the President gets to treat the military in any arbitrary way he pleases; but I think Hill is betting that there are still five real justices on SCOTUS who would reject this idea. And I think she is probably right. When the dust settles, the grounds for impeachment would be irrefutable.
Posted by steve at May 5, 2007 05:23 AMAIPAC's Queen will say anything if she thinks it will improve her chances of winning the nomination.
Especially, as she sees Barack Obama match her fundraising numbers and his popularity equal and in some polls, surpass her own.
But Hillary can't run away from her Hawkish position on a myriad of issues. It's a matter of public record and she owns it.
Posted by Christopher at May 5, 2007 05:40 AMAIPAC's Queen will say anything if she thinks it will improve her chances of winning the nomination.
But she didn't say she was wrong on AUMF like Edwards did, did she?
Posted by Don Bacon at May 5, 2007 07:51 AMIs anyone besides me eagerly awaiting the Carl Bernstein book on Hill coming out next month?
Posted by tduke at May 5, 2007 08:34 AM...they did sell her twin brother Chucky to win in 92.
People always forget Chucky!
Hillary is nothing more than republi-con lite. The last thing we need after the Mad King, idiot son of George, is another Imperial presidency. And we certainly don't need someone so heavily bedded with big business in the Oval Office.
LATEST NEWSWEEK POLL
Clinton 51%
Obama 39%
Clinton 57%
Edwards 38%
Obama 49%
Edwards 41%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18491981/sit e/newsweek/
Posted by JoeCHI at May 5, 2007 03:11 PMWho else wrote the Bill? Just Hillary? Conyers maybe. He's not crediable with the base? Pubic? Riiiight...
ON THE MERITS, why would this be a bad idea? Lay it out for us instead of this is what Hillary is doing and it's a political stunt without examing what it is she's suggesting, whether it's ACTUALLY NEEDED, WHY, WHY NOT, and then list your reasons it won't pass, and then your reasons why it's a political stunt.
Here. I'll start you off.
What in the 03 Resolution still gives Bush the Authority to remain and Occupy Iraq?
Again what IN THE RESOLUTION's language gives Bush Authority to occupy Iraq with setting a date to leave?
Was the 03' AUMF was too broad?
Why did Bush need an AUMF?
Bush needed the AUMF to not run afoul of the War Powers Act (Stop Nixon Bill) which says w/o declaration of war or a functional equivalent the President has x days to use combat forces.
Setting an end date for the AUMF is both a smart political move and stops further dangerous anti Constitutional precedent from being set.
Think about it institutionally, a future President could ask for authority to bomb Country ABC because of xyz and the President then bombs, invades, and occupys Country ABC until the President's puppet government has the ability to defend itself which could take 5 to 30 years.
If so, each time Congress authorizes the President to protect National Security, he could commit US Forces into 30 year military occupations of sovereign countries.
So next ask yourself, did Bush ask for and receive authority to occupy Iraq after the Iraqi Gov had their elections? WMD Threat? Check. Saddam UN issue? Check. Saddam Caputure and Execution? Check. Free & Democractic Iraq? Check.
So we're there to protect Iraq as their request even though their asking us to leave. What authority does Bush have again and how does this Bill make Hillary seem insincere. Who cares if the Stupid GOPers keep voting the wrong way everytime they get a chance.
Seems to me Hillary wants GOPers on the Record in favor of the Occupation of Iraq because they no doubt would draft new legislation re-authorizing force in Iraq. And if your keeping tally, that means this is an issue for 2010 and 2012...being these idiots voted to keep it going...do you really trust these guys to run foreign policy? They knew it was a bust, yet they kept playing party politics.
Another poo-poo thread. You stink.
Posted by Ra at May 6, 2007 01:34 AM