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
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Clinton Seeks New Iraq War Vote
2007-05-04
WASHINGTON (AP) - Presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday sought to force another showdown with President Bush - and her Democratic rivals - over the Iraq war. Sens. Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., announced they would introduce legislation that would require the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007. ``If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him,'' Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor.

The two senators have not decided how they will seek to force a vote on the measure - whether through an amendment, a stand-alone bill, or a spending bill.
Got it all thought out, do they?
Her seemingly tough talk also contained a veiled jab at rival Silky Pony John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who has been outspoken in criticizing his own vote and that of other lawmakers in 2002 authorizing the war. Clinton noted on Thursday that in 2002 she had also voted for an amendment offered by Byrd that would have limited the war authorization to one year. The measure was defeated, and Edwards voted against it. ``I supported the Byrd amendment on Oct 10, 2002 which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue,'' she said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino derided the proposal and attributed it to posturing for Democratic primary voters. ``Here we go again. The Senate is trying another way to put a surrender date on the calendar. Welcome to politics '08-style,'' Perino said.

The Democrats are not the first to suggest Congress vote whether to reauthorize the war. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, floated the possibility months ago, but it has gone nowhere.

Clinton's position on the Iraq war has been a subject of constant debate among Democrats as they weigh the candidates seeking the presidential nomination. She voted to authorize the war, but has long criticized the Bush administration's handling of the conflict. While others have called for an immediate withdrawal, Clinton has favored redeploying troops out of Iraq within 90 days. She also supports a goal of removing all combat troops except those needed for residual missions by March 2008.
Conveniently set up to let her do what she wants should she win in November 08. Just 'residual missions', that's all.
Edwards urged Congress to pass again a bill Bush just vetoed that would have begun troop withdrawals in October. ``Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him. They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war, and brings them home,'' he said.
How does it support the troops?
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said of the Byrd-Clinton plan: ``While I applaud this effort, sadly, it will not change the president's course in Iraq.''
Won't help your poll standings for President, either.
Posted by:Steve White

#21  I sent what I thought was an interesting de Borchgrave article to James Taranto of The Best of the Web some years ago, and he wrote back explaining exactly why he didn't think much of the gentleman's opinions. I don't remember the details, JosephM, but it was quietly scathing.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-05-04 23:37  

#20  As a reminder, SPACEWAR etal. > IRAN will have a LR ICBM miiiiiiisssslllleee, very likely capable of carrying a nuclear payload, and also likely capable of striking the US of A, + Europe, by or circa Year 2010. *Also, NEWSMAX > DE BORCHGRAVE article > AL QAEDA/Terror "sleeper cells" inside USA + around the Weld, AWAIT OPPORTUNITY = ORDERS TO STRIKE.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-05-04 23:04  

#19  FOX NEWS Pert > USA may see DOW as high as 18,000 by = circa Year 2010. Should be higher than that by my calcs/formulas, but what the hey - close enuff for Gubmint work, close enuff for me to celebrate wid for SUBWAY = QUIZNOS Hoagies.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-05-04 22:58  

#18  SW:
It's more of an AND function. While Congress can't force the President to actually attack somewhere, he is not allowed more than defensive measures without a DoW.

Remember that even after Pearl Harbor, FDR, certainly not one to believe in a weak Presidency, went to Congress for a DoW on Japan.

So I like the Constitution giving Congress the authority to enable or disable the President's use of the military. I also agree that it's a purely OFF/ON switch and it has no authority on how he conducts the war.
Posted by: Jackal   2007-05-04 22:22  

#17  I wish the donks would dig their heels in as hard in fighting this war as they do to oppose anything Bush does.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-05-04 21:00  

#16  Technically speaking, this is what they did after the Senate refused to ratify the Versailles Treaty at the conclusion of WWI. Congress just repealed the declaration of war. Still doesn't alter that a state of war can still exist without one. The 19th century is validation of that with military operations against insurgents natives throughout the western territories being conducted without a declaration of any sort. When the Donks were in the 'punish the Army' mode after the Civil War, it took another incursion by the Apache out of Mexico to 'encourage' the Donk Texas delegation to put their constituents [and their need for reelection] ahead of party power politics to get the Army funded for a year.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-05-04 20:19  

#15  Oh No,No,No, She "Wants to build on Bill's Legacy" Didnchya know?

(First thing out of my mouth "WHAT LEGACY?'0
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-05-04 19:23  

#14   1) Power of the purse - approve or deny funding; and 2) Power to formally declare war.

Pretty minor shit all together.
Posted by: Shipman   2007-05-04 19:05  

#13  Will someone please put THAT WOMAN in a mental institution where she belongs, and throw away the key? I absolutely refuse to use her name, in any form, ever again. She makes her husband look like a saint.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2007-05-04 18:26  

#12  Jackal, re-read the Constitution please. The President is Commander in Chief, not Congress. The two powers Congress has in regards to wars are : 1) Power of the purse - approve or deny funding; and 2) Power to formally declare war. Congress can declare war all day long and if the President refuses to commit troops, that is the end of it. Look at the law that Congress and Clinton passed in the 1990s about removing Saddam from power : Clinton signed it and then did NOTHING, even though the law made it a formal policy of the US government to remove Saddam by any means.
In war, the Congress can propose but the President can choose to not dispose.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2007-05-04 17:06  

#11  Love the graphic. Is it a real picture or a cartoon?
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-05-04 15:48  

#10  I really have to disagree here.

Congress has the power to start or end a war, and it should be that way. The Founding Fathers had experience with executives who could start wars on their own.

The fact that the current Congress is in the hands of those who want short-term political advantage, regardless of what it does to the country, and out-and-out disloyal traitors, doesn't really change that.

Congress (effectively) declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq. They did not do so on Serbia or Haiti.
Posted by: Jackal   2007-05-04 15:32  

#9  This is the Democrat's partial birth abortion of the Iraqi democracy. Doctor Hillary is the abortionist.
Posted by: WTF   2007-05-04 15:25  

#8  Shieldwolf-

The War Powers Act is indeed of at best dubious legality. So far it's not been flat out challenged, but it is very likely that were it to go in front of SCOTUS, it would die a quick and final death. As far as changing the original UMF resolution to add in a clause that convienently kills the UMF upon approval, that won't go anywhere either. It's veto-able, and nobody's going to override it.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2007-05-04 12:27  

#7  Can isn't going to be kicked down the road. Joke's on her, but we'll all pay for her folly.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2007-05-04 10:50  

#6  She's so worried about Obama that she's willing to dump her "hawk" credentials just to kick the can down the road.
Posted by: danking_70   2007-05-04 10:08  

#5  I would like to see that picture on the front pages of every paper in the country.

Larry Kudlow is right, there is no presidential material in the donk party.
Posted by: wxjames   2007-05-04 09:57  

#4  Perhaps now would be an opportune time to revisit what had been US Policy since 1998.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.


The Iraq Liberation Act
Posted by: doc   2007-05-04 08:54  

#3  Bi+ch. Democrat's version of taquiyya, I guess.
Posted by: gorb   2007-05-04 03:55  

#2  This may well be unconstitutional, since the Separation of Powers inherent in the Constitution does NOT require congressional permission to wage war. Also, the War Powers Act that the Democrats like to cite has NOT been ruled on by the US Supreme Court which leaves its actual legality open to question.
I expect President Bush to veto anything this stupid like he did the other bill, but it may be necessary to fight this in the courts to discourage this sort of stupidity in the future.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2007-05-04 03:43  

#1  See also on FREEREPUBLIC.com. OTOH, THE HILL > interview wid CINDY SHEEHAN > MOTHER CINDY says HILLARY is "BAD" FOR AMERICA. There goes the reunion.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-05-04 02:35  

00:00