You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Dems want to 'revise' 2002 Iraq AUMF
2007-01-28
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats may promote a new revised bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- to replace the 2002 bill that allowed the Bush administration to proceed with the war, a top Democrat said Friday.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer -- No. 2 in the House behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- said that is one step Democrats might pursue to change conditions in Iraq. "Frankly, it is time for the president to accept that we are no longer involved in a nation-building exercise. We are involved in conflict resolution," Hoyer said during a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

After a series of congressional hearings on the war, "We will then explore appropriate ways to affect the policy and strategy being pursued in Iraq," Hoyer said.
And refuse to stand up on any of them.
Some ways include spending bills for military and diplomatic activities in Iraq "and possibly a revised authorization for the use of military force in Iraq that more accurately reflects the mission of our troops on the ground," he said.

Democrats want to shift responsibility to anyone but themselves Iraqis, begin "the phased redeployment of our forces within the next six months," and implement "an aggressive diplomatic strategy," he said.

Next week, the Senate is expected to pass a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, and the House will likely follow suit, Hoyer said. "Beyond this resolution, though, our goal in the House is to conduct the kind of oversight of the president's policy that has been sorely missing during the nearly four years of this war. Democrats intend to hold this administration accountable," the Maryland Democrat said.

"I believe the administration's Iraq policy is the most incompetent implementation of American foreign policy in my lifetime."

Hoyer was also critical of other nations, saying they were ignoring their obligations. Of the $13.5 billion pledged by various nations for Iraq at a donors' conference in 2003, only $3.5 billion "has made its way to Iraq," he said. He noted the Iraq Study Group's call for the United States and Iraq to get Arab leaders involved. "We also should ask these countries to invest some small percentage of their hundreds of billions of dollars made in oil profits to help bolster security and reconstruction efforts," Hoyer said.

He called for a new international conference. "I would propose that this conference be carried out under U.N. auspices, with robust involvement from various Iraqi factions, neighboring countries, key Middle East nations, the European Union and others, with the hope of brokering deals on securing Iraq's borders, disbanding militias, finalizing the constitution, establishing divisions of power and oil resources, and other issues."
"Let's let the foxes guard the henhouse, they promise not to harm the chickens."

Mr. Hoyer, the Iraqi constitution is finalized and it's the responsibility of the Iraqi people. It's their responsibility to settle the oil money and 'divisions of power'. You want the Iraqis to take on more responsibility and then want an 'international conference' to make all the decisions. Which is it? And just how is the EU going to disband a militia?
He said he agrees with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that Iraq "is the whole world's problem.
That's every bit as dumb as something Kofi would say.
"While the world can and should critically evaluate the administration's flawed execution of this war, we cannot ignore the central argument that our action was, in part, a consequence of the international community's failure to act multilaterally," Hoyer said, citing Saddam Hussein's flouting of U.N. resolutions. "The U.N. only talked in the face of international violations, even though history demonstrates that vacillation only emboldens those who seek to rule through force and terror."

"The international community must embrace its responsibility in Iraq," he added.
Good luck with that. They're waiting for us to fail.
Posted by:Steve White

#8  Stupid. CW II is coming to a neighborhood near you.
Posted by: SR-71   2007-01-28 15:47  

#7  "I would propose that this conference be carried out under U.N. auspices, with robust involvement from various Iraqi factions, neighboring countries, key Middle East nations, the European Union and others, with the hope of brokering deals on securing Iraq's borders, disbanding militias, finalizing the constitution, establishing divisions of power and oil resources, and other issues."

What a freakin' donkweed (don't know if that tag's been ™ yet, but this is a family website)! Problem is all the ideas above are the CAUSE of Iraq's problems now. A UN Conference? Been done. Involve Iraqi "factions"? Been there/done that. Involve neighboring countries & key ME Nations? Ever heard of Syria & Iran being involved? Or, Saudi hate-funding of Paki madrassahs to start all this $h!t? Involve the EU? See: France, UN, Oil for Kofi Program...nuff said. "Brokering deals" on sealing the Iraqi border? How 'bout just freaking doin' it? Disbanding militias? See: Bush/2007 SOTU Address & readjustment speech the week before the SOTU. Constitution's been finalized. And, finally, the Iraqis are "hashing out" the remaining issues (oil profits, etc.). It's almost as if this guy's stuck in 2003/2004 been readin' the MSM. What a putz.
Posted by: BA   2007-01-28 11:23  

#6  The graphic made me laugh out loud. Also appropriate, though different, would have been one of a 90 lb weakling throwing sand in the muscleman's face.
Posted by: Thotle Hupavitch5406   2007-01-28 11:21  

#5  Democrats == children from Lord of the Flys.
They just are too stupid to see it.
Posted by: 3dc   2007-01-28 09:45  

#4  "...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Hey Democrats! Remember those words? He must be wondering whatever happened to that Democratic party. In a just world, Kennedy would rise up from the grave and toss both Pelosi and her little dog Murtha into the Potomac as an example to the rest of them.
Posted by: SteveS   2007-01-28 02:38  

#3  My brain and the brain of the average donk have to made out of completely different material.

My brain says there is only one acceptable conclusion to this war. Victory, winning, success or whatever you want to call it.

In the donks brain however, this outcome is completely unthinkable and the only outcome they can think of is the the outcome that is unthinkable in my brain, failure.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-28 00:52  

#2  Dumbasses.

The AUMF is not a computer file whose name you can change and voila! now thew left runs executive warmaking powers.

There are real consequences with losses of real lives, American lives.

You can't agree to a war and then later decide that you are against it, not without winning the war. We have real live citizens who have staked their very lives and well being on a positive outcome to the war. The left may think they owe no one anything for their high minded idealism, but they do owe those servicefolks consideration and support this thing to its only acceptable conclusion. It is their moral obligation to support these citizens who are risking their lives to win the war.

It is not a choice. It's an obligation.

Real consequences will follow regardless of the outcome.
Posted by: badanov   2007-01-28 00:25  

#1  I suspect that a "revision" of the AUMF-- while the war is still underway-- would be a very difficult thing for the Dems to pull off.

Any change of langugage would only be an overtly obvious attempt to usurp the Commander in Chief's constitutional authority to conduct the war.

It's all bluster, or sound and fury signifying nothing.
Posted by: Captain America   2007-01-28 00:13  

00:00