WASHINGTON, May 4, 2007
Hillary Seeks To End War Authorization
Clinton, With Sen. Robert Byrd, To Push Bill Requiring President To Get War Reauthorization From Congress
-
Photo
During a speech on the Senate floor Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said, "If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him." (GETTY)
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Interactive
110th Congress
The balance of power shifts and new leadership takes control as the latest session convenes.
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.
Her tough talk also contained a veiled jab at rival 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.
Edwards urged Congress to pass again a bill Mr. 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.
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."
Meanwhile, House Democratic leaders indicated they are not ready to back down in their confrontation with President Bush on Iraq.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other party leaders are considering a bill that would fund the war as Mr. Bush wants, but only guarantee the money through July. After that, Congress could block additional money from being sent if the Iraqi government does not meet certain political and security goals.
The proposal, not yet endorsed or briefed to caucus members, would be a direct challenge to the president, who has demanded Congress fund the war with no strings attached. This week, Mr. Bush vetoed a $124.2 billion bill that would have provided money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while requiring troops to begin coming home by Oct. 1.
Democrats say they will provide troops in combat the resources they need and will send Bush a bill by the end of the month. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to fund war operations until July.
In a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., suggested that the House guarantee funding of the war only through July. The bill would provide additional money after that point, but give Congress a chance to deny those funds be used if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.
Under Obey's proposal, members would vote separately on whether to fund some of the domestic spending in the Iraq bill that Bush opposed, such as agricultural assistance.
The plan was described by Democratic aides who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the plan. According to a senior Democratic leadership aide, the plan has not been endorsed by Pelosi or in the Senate.
The move likely would appease a large number of House Democrats who are reluctant to vote for a war spending bill unless it moves toward getting troops out of Iraq. Such a plan would signal to caucus members that the speaker was not willing to back down to Bush and, at the same time, support the troops.
While the House could narrowly pass the measure, it is unlikely to find similar backing in the Senate, where some leading Democrats say they want to fund the war through September.
Several Republicans, including Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire and Reps. Roy Blunt of Missouri and Adam Putnam of Florida, have said they are open to restricting the more than $5 billion in aid for Iraq if the Baghdad government does not meet certain benchmarks.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
Hi-Tech Drones Aid Terror Hunt
-
Video
Confirming Sotomayor
-
Video
Obama, Pope Convene At Vatican
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 85 CommentsCount on the Republicans in Congress to filibuster the *** out of this. Count on them to lose even bigger in 2008.
Yep, she's a genius. :)
1. Keep putting the same bill on Bush's desk and remind the AMerican people the money is there--but it is Bush's stubborn pride keeping it from the troops
2. Stop authorizing the war, Bush stands to lose a LOT of power when the war stops. A lot of what he is doing is based on the supposition and excuse that he can do practically anything in a time of war--this is why the war is so important--Bush could care less what happens to Iraqis and Iraq per se--Iraq is just cover for doing things like stacking the judicial and DOJ with Republicans, hiding or destroying data, getting cronies jobs, and spying on rivals. If the war stops, the wheels really come off and so do the gloves--Rove must have told Bush to avoid that at all costs. I like Hilary's idea--pull the plug--then to reinsert, Congress must recall the shots and the limits. Hopefully it is a more older and wiser Congress ----now alerted to the Bush and GOP sleight of hand, lies and dirty games.
Posted by scottyusa at 08:56 AM : May 04, 2007
Dream on--this country has been split ever since Bush was selected to be President by the Scotus. The really HUGE rift came as a result of this war--BOTH Republican actions. Everyone except neo cons knows that (and they know it too--but it is their nature to blame any/all but themselves for their own fvck ups)
That's why the dems lose their momentum, they have their head up their arses.
Posted by Cathaleen at 09:10 AM : May 04, 2007
That's an intelligent comment there, cathaleen. Don't you think that by forcing Bush to reauthorize this republican war in light of the "new" WMD intelligence we have and the knowledge that the whole bit about Hussein being repsonsible for 9/11 was a republican lie, Congress may not vote to reauthorize this war? Sounds like the ones with their heads in their arses are the maggots that ignored the public and refused to override shrub's veto.
so yes Hillary bring reality and its bright spotlight to this administration and watch the bugs scurry for cover!
The old democrat party of:
"Ask NOT what your country can do for you, but rather what YOU can do for your country"
no longer exists.
And instead has been replaced by the concept of Big Government.
...
The old democrat party of:
"Ask NOT what your country can do for you, but rather what YOU can do for your country"
no longer exists.
And instead has been replaced by the concept of Big Government.
...
The old democrat party of:
"Ask NOT what your country can do for you, but rather what YOU can do for your country"
no longer exists.
And instead has been replaced by the concept of Big Government.
...
If the dems were in power during DDAY, they would have said the war was lost because of the casualties we took on the first day (over 4000 killed - rest in peace).
Posted by lilvinnyb at 09:47 AM : May 04, 2007
Difference: Iraq never attacked us...
Posted by NYCKATE at 09:56 AM : May 04, 2007
LOL. Maybe its just that the republicans are getting weeded out- the more intelligent ones are jumping the sinking ship like rats and we are seeing the leftovers in places like this.
Posted by missmyhubby at 09:58 AM : May 04, 2007
Plus we weren't led into the war based on a pack of lies. If your husband is over in Iraq I feel for you and pray that those troops come home safely and soon.
Posted by rsoxfan1123 at 10:05 AM : May 04, 2007
Thank you rsoxfan1123, he has been there since August doing combat patrols--risking his life everyday for this nonsense...and I am scared out of my whits! He was extended and won't be home--well, they haven't told us! Thank you for your prayers and keep them coming!
Well, Republicans (and especially George Bush) have become like spoiled children. For six years, George Bush and the Republicans have gotten just about everything they wanted. No one could say "no" to them. But now that the Democrats finally can say "no" to George Bush, he whines and stamps his feet like a five year old, demanding his way. And like the parents who never discipline their spoiled child, the Republican Congress also refuses to scold George Bush, preferring to let him be a spoiled, whiny little brat.
I don't know why the Republicans feel that it can only be their way. Did they think they were entitled to some sort of permanent majority? That half the country would continue to remain silenced? It's time George Bush and the Republicans realize there are two sides to government and the options are to agree or compromise. The option of "my way or the highway" is no longer there.
Maybe daddy Bush should have said "no" to George Jr once in a while. Then he wouldn't be such a spoiled, arrogant little brat.
Posted by NYCKATE at 10:11 AM : May 04, 2007
I hope not. Hillary isn't a miracle worker and can't fix everything overnight, but she can get this country going in the right direction. If we wind up with 4 more years of a republican this country will get wrecked so badly it may never recover. McCain wants to send 400,000 more troops into Iraq.
I would actually be OK with a moderate COMPETENT Republican (the key word being competent). Unfortunately, John McCain has been moved off my "competent" list this past year.
400,000 troops might do it. Keep the terrorists overwhelmed (to a degree) in order to let the Iraqi troops and police train in peace. But we don't have 400,000 troops available and still keep our commitments around the world. Not without a draft.
I am extremely disappointed that Congress hasn't stood up to this President in light of his readily appearant failures regarding Iraq - from the deception about WMDs to lack of plans, supplies and diplomacy that have placed too many of our troops in peril.
It is too late to fight about whether we should have invaded or not - the time to punish those who forced the invasion will come. But it was never too late to force this administration to do their duty to the troops and the American people - and that we are in our 5th year there now and Congress still have not yet revoked the special powers they gave Bush is simply unforgiveable.
Posted by Rafterman1 at 10:19 AM : May 04, 2007
That's what they kept saying in Viet nam. Escalation after escalation. I like to think that collectively as a nation we evolve rather than making the same stupid mistakes over and over again. All the republicans overrode the veto and ignored the American people. They're all party loyal maggots.
Posted by NYCKATE at 10:24 AM : May 04, 2007
There are just enough republicans mixed in there that hang on King Geore's every word that it is sabotaging what Congress is trying to do. Give hillary credit- she's trying. This sounds like a reasonable plan
I am assuming that Bush's strategy is to train the Iraqi army and police to take over security before we leave. I say "assume" because Bush won't say what the policy is.
But it's hard to train these guys if the Iraqi government (1) has no motivation to train the recruits and (2) the recruits keep getting blown up.
The Democratic timeline goes towards solving goal 1. Goal 2 involves protecting the trainees. More troops won't defeat the insurgency but could they provide just enough security around Baghdad to get the Iraqis trained without dying? Or perhaps bring the Iraqis to train in the US.
Again, I hope Bush's goal is training. Because if the goal is to defeat the insurgency, then we are going to be there for a very long time.
Posted by NYCKATE at 10:28 AM : May 04, 2007
I think Hillary has been the brains behind Bill all along. He has the charisma and she the intelligence. Remember, we'd have them both back in there again if she wins. A Gore/Clinton ticket (in that order) would be a dream. I'd vote for Edwards too though if he gets the nomination.
Rafterman1-Honestly I don't even really care that much about Iraq, as bad as that sounds. I'd rather see the money spent in our own country than theirs. It should be a UN problem by now if our preseident had any diplomacy whatsoever. But then he'd probably lose some of his oil profits.
Hillary Rodham in her best fake southern accent in front of a group of blacks. Can anyone say, SHAMELESS PANDERING? And you guys think republicans lie.....tisk, tisk.
Geffen was right. "the Clintons lie with such ease, it's troubling."
We accomplished what we went there to do, get rid of Sadaam and WMD. If there's any WMD in Iraq today it's come since the occupation across the borders we aren't capable of sufficiently guarding.
I'm not a Hillary fan but this is the most responsible proposal so far( and Republican John Warner deserves credit for initally proposing it).
There is no option other than withdrawal and the October 11 date gives all the parties time to adjust to the new reality. If our "enemies" hold their fire until our troops are out of harm's way, that's a good thing. The alternnative is them shooting us as we're leaving, which is why immediate withdrawal is unrealistic.
The Republicans will try to filibuster this. Americans should prepare to shut down the Capitol Hill if they do.
To quote the Republicans, elections have consequences. If the American people have to speak again, so be it.
When you say that Bush has a great marriage to his stepford wife, are you talking about Laura or Condi?
Our soldiers are tired. We are losing over 100 soldiers a month. Either they are getting mentally exhausted and are not as cautious or we are not doing a bit of good over there. To tell you the truth, I believe both.
Bush says he would know if the moral of the soldiers was down. Well he apparently is not talking to the right people. Live with the soldiers for awhile and then you will see. Dont listen to the officer that is hardly on the front lines. I bet all he asks is How are you doing soldier? The soldier answers, Ok sir. So yep the moral is good.
What bothers me more than anything is THE PEOPLE want this to end. How can a president that was voted in by these people continue to do what he wants and not the people?
I know I have a long way to go in understanding politics, but I hate people that do not sway from the old righteous "I am always right syndrome"
One of the things that baffles me about Bush supporters is how or why on earth they thought a neophyte like Bush was EVER going to fix the middle east. Not only has Bush shown extreme inability to comphrened any culter different that that of a trust-fund-frat-boy but he's also completel delusional about his own capabilities - he's never done nothing but fail - then Rove came along and literally 'sold' a false perception of Bush and so many bought into the soundsbites. WHY??
Posted by NYCKATE at 10:49 AM : May 04, 2007
I think that they simply put party loyalty over common sense. Religion can be like that also- it can short ciruit the human brain in some weird way that makes an intelligent person behave irrationaly. Like those Heaven's Gate people that drank the poisoned kool aid to send their souls to space ships. Some of them had really high IQs. Politics and religion will do that to people.
El Presidente told us the other day that we will know by fall if we are going to succeed in Iraq or not. Was he giving our enemies a timetable?
We've been told that the surge won't be totally operational until July. That's why the violence in Baghdad initially went down and is now heading back up. Once the surge is totally operational it will either work or not by fall, according to him.
If this resolution passes, it won't take effect until October 11. If progress is being made he can go back to Congress and seek an extension. If not, then by his definition, we will have lost. Under the proposals of Congress we would still have another 6 months to withdraw.
What's the problem Dude?
Posted by NYCKATE at 11:02 AM : May 04, 2007
They're basically like brainwashed zombies in a very real sense.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 85 Comments