Hell Yes! I'm wondering why it has not, so far.
Posted by DeminNewJ at May 9, 2007 11:05 AMstv, ny srt f wvng wll smply msk th fct tht w wll nvr lv rq, nlss smn bggr kcks r btt t. ll y hv t d s stdy th srl ccptn f Plstn, thr tchnqs f cnqst, nd y'll s t's mrrr mg n rq, rght p t th wlls, ncldng pr Nz rcsm, mskd n prt s r mdrn Blshvk dmcrcy.
Frthr, ny wrttn mtrl tht wkns r pwr lt wll fllw th dntcl srl pth: dly, gnr, mrdr, trtr, sbd, nd stnwll, ntl th crp frnt lnrs gt wht thy wnt: cmplt hgmny. ls, whn thy wn, thy wll cll th rsltng pc: Px mrcn. Jst grt.
[Editor: ignore=off]Steve, clearly the AUMF was inoperable the day that the
Bush selected WMD Search Team said nothing was there and nothing had been in years, and the day Saddam was captured. If the Congress recinded that AUMF tomorrow, Bush would continue the war as if brushing a butterfly off his lapel. I am convinced, due to statements made in recent days, that neither Congress or the American people have any means to end this war until the next president is sworn in. This occupation will not end until he is out of office, if then.
...to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Some would argue that Iraq, in it's present post-Saddam state, still constitutes a threat to the national security of the United States. Truth be told, it's probably a greater threat now than it ever was while Saddam Hussein was in power.
Posted by snark at May 9, 2007 11:51 AMSteve - that's why I've advocated rewriting the War Powers Act, which the AMUF is constructed under.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 9, 2007 12:29 PMHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.
Pelosi recently told a group of bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the blog DailyKos.
I would agree with some that Iraq in its present state is a threat to our national security, in that it could well be the cause of a popular uprising to overthrow this government.... Aside from that, no. Remember one very important thing: below this post is a photo of the vice president of the United States sitting in confernce with the head of Iraq - taken today...in short, like it or not, the government of Iraq are our "allies" and as such pose no threat to this country. Our Armies fight side by side. No, the nation of Iraq (charitable) is not a threat. Muslim extremists fanned by our destruction of Muslim holy places are.
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2007 12:32 PMBoth the AUMF-Iraq (PL 107-243) and AUMF-Terrorists (PL 107-40) should be rescinded. The Bush administration exploits them to justify aggressive war abroad and repress civil liberties at home.
The wars of occupation founded on initial aggression, while powerfully nutritious to narrow corporate interests, visit tremendous unnecessary carnage and wreckage on host nations. Occupied populations and their sympathizers thoroughly justified hatred of American policies seriously threatens our national security and diminishes our position in the world.
The administration's abuses of NSA surveillance powers, the Military Commission Act and CIA torture/rendition programs are all direct authoritarian derivatives of the specious security objectives legislated by the craven 107th Congress.
They have no place in a land of the free and home of the brave. That's why they found such traction in contemporary America.
...below this post is a photo of the vice president of the United States sitting in confernce with the head of Iraq - taken today...in short, like it or not, the government of Iraq are our "allies"...
Sitting in a conference room in a maximum security zone cut off from the rest of Iraq and surrounded by thousands of our armed forces. Which is the only reason the lives of Cheney AND the "Iraqi Prime Minister" are remotely safe in that conference room. The Iraqi government might be our allies but they wouldn't be the Iraqi government if our military was not making it so.
Posted by snark at May 9, 2007 12:48 PMyes, but our military is making it so. For the foreseeable future. Unless, of course, the people of Iraq have different ideas. We pose a threat to Iraq, not the other way around.
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2007 01:23 PMT2,
Are you proposing that anarchy in Iraq would not constitute a national security threat to the United States?
I'm not taking sides here. Just playing devil's advocate of sorts. I think the Dems have to tread very carefully with the verbiage they choose to use relative to this whole situation.
Posted by snark at May 9, 2007 01:48 PMgee snark, I think if the Dems are any more careful, they'll be Republicans (one already is). Please define Anarchy in Iraq. Does it have to do with an invasion and occupation by a foreign country?
Posted by T2 at May 9, 2007 02:23 PMgee snark, I think if the Dems are any more careful, they'll be Republicans
ROFLMAO! Good one, T2.
Posted by Christopher at May 9, 2007 02:29 PMI agree, Steve. However, it would serve no useful purpose with a party that prefers contemplating capitulation rather than success.
I am angry that the Democratic leadership doesn't demonstrate an unequivocal determination to end funding for the occupation now.
Posted by fafnir at May 9, 2007 02:37 PMNever mind.
Posted by snark at May 9, 2007 02:43 PMI haven't had much a chance to search and read headlines in the msm, but this is the first I heard about that Iraqi parliament vote for timetables! You would think that this would be huge news..you know the fact that the political factions in Iraq came together in unity on an issue...which is exactly what Petreaus keeps harping on about Iraq, that there has to be an Iraqi political solution in Iraq....well this is certainly a big step forward in that direction.
Posted by emal at May 9, 2007 06:39 PMYou would think that this would be huge news
emal, this story was totally buried today; even though it's likely that this was the real reason why Cheney showed up in Iraq "unannounced" today.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 9, 2007 07:50 PM