Whereas Saddam Hussein never had any WMD, and whereas Saddam Hussein is no longer a plausible threat to peace, the AUMF is hereby revoked.
I like the sound of that.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 9, 2007 08:24 AMThe Democrats in Congress need to grab Bush Jr. by the throat on this issue and choke him until he passes out. This is the time for tough politics. Kick him while he's down and let the Media try to cover that.
This surge idea shouldn't even be debated. It's over over there. If he sends more troops in with no support at home, we are going to get our asses handed back to us.
Posted by Jim DeRosa at January 9, 2007 08:25 AMAnd yet the Democrats tip-toe around the idea of revoking the 2001 AUMF?
While it may be a comforting symbolic move...
does anyone really believe that the Dems would get any kind of favorable mileage out of such a move from the sad excuse of a media we have in this country?
Talk about setting yourself up for being ridiculed for closing the barn door after the horse has escaped! Any Republican incapable of jumping all over that move oughta turn in his American flag lapel pin.
Posted by snark at January 9, 2007 08:36 AMI think paradox's earlier post is right: the direct mechanisms of stopping the war are bound to fail (and snark and I are also right that these direct mechanisms will put Dems in an ugly spot when it comes time to address "who lost the Iraq war" issues in future elections). The way to fight the war is by fighting Bush, and putting him in a spot where his party has no choice but to sell him out and form an anti-war consensus.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 9, 2007 08:44 AMthe surprise in this poll is that 36% approve of escalation. As for the revocation of the AUMF, yes the GOP Media would jump on the Dems for taking that forward. That's the problem. As long as the Majority party is scared of the GOP Media, we won't do anything. If the Majority fails to represent the people because they think Sean Hannity will make them look bad....we are in deep do do. Some folks need to start behaving like they are in power.
Posted by T2 at January 9, 2007 08:46 AMApparently, Ted Kennedy gets what Joe Biden doesn't. His party is in power. Ted's just released a letter, pretty well stated at that.
Posted by T2 at January 9, 2007 08:56 AMHear! Hear! T2.
It's long past the time when Democrats, representing a significant majority of us
should act RESPONSIBLY! If the media goons drool all over themselve attacking the adults in Congress (well, a few of them are, anyway) the Dems should ram it right back down their fellating throats. For ONCE, point out the hypocrisy and logical fallacies of the spouting gasbags, refuse to accept their framing and just invite them to join the rest of us in the real world.
It would certainly take them by surprise. Initially, the standard response would be an echoing, Ralph Cramdenesque, hamana hamana hamana. Those people are unchallenged idiots. When they fail, either by omission (of facts) or commission (of ridiculous talking pointism) , their blow dried hair should be blasted straight backwards with a blistering response. Maybe that would wake up a few sleeping Americans.
We have met the enemy and it is Count Novackula and his hordes of carefully coiffed colleagues.
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 9, 2007 09:02 AMKennedy has already introduced legislation that would require Bush to get Congress' approval for his plan.
Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the number for such forces which existed as of January 9, 2007, without a specific authorization from Congress by law for such an increase.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2007 09:02 AMIt's pretty clear: Bush is batshit crazy and not suited to hold elected office.
Let's hope the Democrats clip his wings before he can do even greater harm to this nation.
Posted by Christopher at January 9, 2007 09:04 AMwell, the "liberal" NYT doesn't oppose an escalation, as long as it's done right. . Useless.
The current framing of American political debate gives the Republicans undeserved creditability on military issues. That's one of the flaws of falling into the "mommey party-daddy party" trap.
Simply put, the GOP has projected an image of being "strong on defense" scince at least the Reagan era.
The result is when a knucklehead like Bush gets involved in a war like Iraq and manages it badly, he gets re-elected anyway because of the concept of "better to be strong and wrong tan weak and right."
But the incompetence of this administration is so great that the opportunity is there to reframe the debate. The fat that a number of Iraq war veterans ran and won as Democrats is a good start. Having a veteran who is a competent progressive, like Gore or Clark, on the 2008 ticket could end the undeserved advantege the Republcans currently have on military issues.
To paraphraise what I saw recently on another blog, with the reform ideas of the 100 hour plan being popular with the people, if the GOP loses that military mojo, American politics could very quickly look about like it did circa 1936.
Some folks need to start behaving like they are in power.
As Seven of Six noted in a conversation yesterday, the last time somebody decided not to be thrifty in spending his newly-acquired "political capital," the results were not good.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 9, 2007 09:19 AMIf the Majority fails to represent the people because they think Sean Hannity will make them look bad....we are in deep do do.
And ostensibly catering to the whims of the the "dirty fucking hippies" is gonna help? The dems aren't worried about what the Hannitys will say, they're being careful about what the voters will decide in '08. Because face it, unless the military refuses to follow orders, Bush has the power to do whatever he wants with them, and has shown that he won't listen to anyone - not congress, not even the law.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2007 09:36 AMI think the Dems are going to declare their "strong" opposition to Escalation'07, make it clear that it's Codpiece-in-Chief's disastrous judgment that's behind it, and thus "live to fight another day". They do like to keep that powder dry for future "battles".
Morally, it's not too inspiring. Politically, it may be the best course given the failed state of our democracy and the weaknesses of this "anti-war" party. It will very substantially turn-off the base, so all these much promised investigations better bear some real fruit.
Posted by euzoius at January 9, 2007 09:39 AMI must be dreaming. Ollie North is opposed to escalation.
Posted by JohnT at January 9, 2007 09:46 AMThe dems already voiced their opposition to the "surge" the day after they took control of the house! Or was I just dreaming it? Nope.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2007 09:49 AMBush is going to do what he's going to do. And he's taking the GOP with him, whether they like it or not.
At least this way young Americans will actually be dying for a noble cause: The annihilation of the modern treasonous GOP.
Fuckers all oughta hang.
Posted by God Of War at January 9, 2007 09:52 AMDJ, the "political capital" Bush was talking about was all in his head. He has been below 50% every since then. The very strong Dem showing in November is real, not imagined power. Certainly Bush can veto or "signing statement" or purely ignore the results of Congress exercising that power, but to fail to try to use the power a strong majority of the voters has given would be....well, not good.
Posted by T2 at January 9, 2007 10:12 AMWell, evidently Mr. 26% is still in control, and Congress is still afraid to stop funding his war or impeach the sob.
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2007 10:52 AM"does anyone really believe that the Dems would get any kind of favorable mileage out of such a move from the sad excuse of a media we have in this country?"
So, I guess we should just all stop talking about this issue and let Bush continue on the path of war. You know, I once remembered men of integrity standing up for what was right. But, since we all are too afraid, let's end the discussion of the war now, and go shopping.
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2007 10:57 AMSo, I guess we should just all stop talking about this issue
I don't think anybody's advocating shutting up about the war...
Posted by dj moonbat at January 9, 2007 11:00 AMDeminNewJ, I completely agree with your post.
Ditto!
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2007 11:01 AMSecond that for DeminNewJ, with this addition.
If the media insists on following the Bush line, hook and sinker, then perhaps the Dems in Congress need to really look into media rules, consolidation, fairness doctrine, all sorts of rules and regulations that the media might not like, if you know what I mean.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 9, 2007 12:16 PMSo, I guess we should just all stop talking about this issue and let Bush continue on the path of war.
Oh Judith, stop the theatrics.
Do you believe revocation of the AUMF would be anything but a symbolic move?
And if the pundits get a good chuckle over "The Dems clsing their eyes and clicking their ruby slippers together to make the whole war just go away" do you think it would be worth it?
No one is saying we should sit down and shut up about the war. Christ, if I can't make a single comment here without it being blown out of all proportion WHAT do you expect from the God damn punditocracy if the Dems pull a lame brain move like revoke the AUMF? You make my very point for me.
Posted by snark at January 9, 2007 12:26 PMSnark, you could say Impeachement by the House is a symbolic move also, since it requires the Senate to actually remove a president. That didn't frighten the Republican House from impeaching Clinton over his heinous crimes against the state. Maybe a little symbolism would be good.
Posted by T2 at January 9, 2007 12:38 PMDuckman, I totally agree that the fairness doctrine and media consolidation should be put on the agenda immediately.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2007 12:41 PMAnother "variable" is the position Congressional Repubs take on Cheney's Escalation.
If the Repub Congressional leadership backs Plan Nine from Cheneyville tommorrow, then, at a bare minimum, Dems must make clear that they strongly disagree with the "strategy", and recognize that the country has no faith in it, but that Nero refuses to bow to the will of the people and the judgement of experts.
Further, they must make clear that the Congressional Repubs want to escalate the war as well and refuse to join the Dems in confronting Nero, thus making it politically impossible to stop the REPUB escalation of Bush's War.
Repubs must be blamed for the humiliation of appeasing Nero, an appeasement which is against the wishes of the voters. If the Dems can't do this, I give up.
Posted by euzoius at January 9, 2007 12:46 PMThink Progress has a good list up of all the times Congress has thrown a net over runaway war activities...real, not symbolic actions.
Posted by T2 at January 9, 2007 12:51 PMSnark, you could say Impeachement by the House is a symbolic move also, since it requires the Senate to actually remove a president.
Impeachment in general? You could say that but I don't think anyone would take you seriously. If that's the case all acts of Congress are symbolic since the President can veto them. But then the president's veto would always be symbolic since the Congress could conceivably muster the votes to override it. By that definition any multistep process is a series of symbolic moves followed by one, ultimate, meaningful one. You really think so?
That didn't frighten the Republican House from impeaching Clinton over his heinous crimes against the state.
Sadly, I think the Republicans were quite intent on removing Clinton. But to the point, Judith's comment suggested that I was in favor of throwing up my hands and doing nothing because I thought the positive/negative on a given action by the Dems was not worth it. I pointed out the symbolic nature of the move only as a connection to the possible benefits of such symbolic actions. The biggest of which, arguably I suppose, would be press coverage and I don't think the press coverage would be sympathetic to the Dems at all.
Posted by snark at January 9, 2007 01:16 PMWell, at least Feingold and Kennedy have some balls.
Edward Kennedy laid down the gauntlet today, making the first formal effort to block President Bush's expected plan for a surge of American troops in Iraq with a bill that would block funding for the additional soldiers and offering clear comparisons to Vietnam.
George Bush's Vietnam." Your reaction?
I agree 65%
I disagree 35%
Total Votes: 17,118
Do you support an increase in troop levels in Iraq?
No 62%
Yes 30%
Not sure 8%
Total Votes: 26,751
"The American people sent a clear message in November that we must change course in Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops, not escalate their presence," Kennedy said. "An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake. It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq. We must act to prevent it."
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/kennedy-calls-iraq-bushs-vietnam/20070109091909990018?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2007 01:27 PM
"Sadly, I think the Republicans were quite intent on removing Clinton." yeah, I think they were. glad we could agree.
"I don't think the press coverage would be sympathetic to the Dems" yeah, probably not.
Talk is not action.
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2007 01:29 PMJudith, I posted that story upthread this morning; and it's not a blocking of funding, it's putting a condition on funding. We'll see how much bite it has.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2007 01:35 PMSnark,
Press coverage hasn't been sympathetic to the Dems since Republican leaning corporations began buying and consolidating their media empires. That would be back before the time of Ronald Reagan, another president guilty of high crimes. It was during "the Gipper's" curious reign that the bewildered cachet, "teflon president" first emerged from the primordial media ooze.
Jimmy Carter got ridicule and scorn while actual, verifiable crimes being committed with the full knowledge of the Press were ignored, explained and quickly forgotten. Bill Clinton's most disastrous mistake was signing the 1996 Corporate Media Consolidation Act. Ronnie Reagan had already taken care of the fairness doctrine.
Rather than pointing out the problematic coverage ANY Democratic action will generate, I'd rather advocate some appropriate smash-mouth responses, such as investigating the curious connections between Disney/ABC and their swiftboating BS, ClearChannel and hate radio, etc. Investigations are not just for breakfast, or the Bushies, anymore. The poisonous media swamp MUST be drained or our democracy will go from moribund to truly deceased.
You're absolutely correct about the predictable responses of the mainstream. I don't think most of us here are in disagreement with you on that. The emphasis is what to do about it. I for one, am tired of taking it in the keister from a useless gaggle of cocktail weenie eating, Rovian transcribing, money-sucking blow-dried rats. Let's do unto them for a change!
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 9, 2007 01:46 PMYou won't get an argument from me DeminNewJ!
Posted by snarkinNewY at January 9, 2007 01:49 PMaccording to an AP report, the War President will have the first wave of his surge heading to Iraq by months end. So much for Congressional oversight. By the time Congress could move to stop him, Bush will already have his surge in country. So I guess a good bit of this thread has been rendered moot, as well as the November elections.
Posted by T2 at January 9, 2007 01:49 PM"Judith's comment suggested that I was in favor of throwing up my hands and doing nothing because I thought the positive/negative on a given action by the Dems was not worth it."
What I was reacting to is this idea that because the Democrats might not get "favorable mileage out of such a move" because of our media.
We can either let the media control the future of this Country, and the decisions the Democrats make, or fight back. Iamcoyote is correct. The fairness doctrine and media consolidation should be put on the agenda immediately, and let's see just how powerful they really are. It's like we can't do this because of this, or we can't to that because of that. And all the while, people are dying. Talk, talk, talk, talk. I'm tired of talking.
Frustrations always brings out the theatrical me.
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2007 02:01 PM
The fairness doctrine and media consolidation should be put on the agenda immediately, and let's see just how powerful they really are.
With all do respect our host I think that's a much more productive use of the newly empowered Democrats than rehashing a unfortunate decision from 5 years ago.
Look. The Dems have the committee chairmanships again. They're gonna be able to get more press AND have more control over the press that they get just because of that fact. It's a very good thing. Hell, last year they couldn't even get rooms to hold press conferences in! Let alone get favorable press.
Posted by snark at January 9, 2007 02:12 PM
Something just occurred to me...
Could this all be a ruse by the administration?
All this leaking about additional troops, all the talk about escalation, all the talk about how the public, military, and pols are opposed to escalation.
Then Bush comes out tomorrow with a different plan? Not that I have one iota of confidence that he can come up with something reasonable, but if he proposes anything other than additional troops, won't the press loving and lavishly throw praise at his feet? Won't the "right" say "See, he does listen to others!" Won't a good portion of the sheeple say anything but escalation sounds reasonable?
Would that gain a bit of political capital for himself?
We know that the only thing he cares about is that we stay there and that Big Oil gets them thar contracts. He doesn't give a crap about the Iraqis and is pissed at them for jeapardizing his imperial rule.
Dunno, the thought just crossed meh head.
Posted by Simp at January 9, 2007 03:32 PMJohn Murtha couldn't have been clearer on the controversial issue as to whether Democrats have the ability to restrict the Bush administration's funding of a troop increase in Iraq.
Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) confused the issue by claiming that it was "constitutionally questionable" whether Congress could preempt funding of Bush's desired "surge."
"No, that's not true at all," Murtha said, adding "we have every ability."
On the question of why certain Democrats were shirking from this option, he offered, "I'll tell you, it's all political."
Of course, since Murtha is the Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, it's in his power to push such a limitation on funding. We'll have more on this later on.
Yep, it's all political.
Simp, with this Administration, one is always, 24/7, looking for the 'catch.' Trusting this Government is a fools errand.
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2007 05:38 PM"The president will not shape policy according to public opinion, but he does understand that it's important to bring the public back to this war and restore public confidence and support for the mission," Snow said.
Oh please Snow. Do you really think Bush can restore public confidence. Your lies are more than just insulting anymore, their idiotic.
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2007 09:04 PM