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
-
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.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 85 CommentsGreat posts!
If Bush can do better than this he needs to "Bring it on!" He's had 4 years and we ain't seen nuthin'.
The Bill's load analogy was so classy and intellectually honest that it took my breath away...have you ever thought about becoming a Republican speech writer or author of pornographic novels like Scooter Libby?
Posted by ToolMangler at 01:49 PM : May 05, 2007
But....but...but the whole world really IS insane except for me! It is! Really! My Psychiatrist said so! He did! He did! He did!
What a gimmick if we ever saw one.
This woman thinks Americans are idiots?
Even bush could do better than the stupid move.
Let's see how many senile and lunatic law makers will side with this silliness.
It like trying to retrieve Bill's load after Monica had already swallowed it. LOL
Posted by radiob at 10:41 PM : May 04, 2007
HiYa' Radiob, To think that most of our candidates are more into 'fighting' each other than the enemy scares the stuffings out of me.
It seems like the 'old saw' about how "the whole world is insane but thee and me, and sometimes I wonder about thee" is becoming status quo in Washington.
Posted by lars008 at 04:20 PM : May 04, 2007
That's right Bush! Stop trying to take my rights away!! I'd rather be dead then to live under your fascist's version of "freedom" where we have to constantly look over our shoulder just to see Big Brother looking back and looking into my bank account...and email...and regular mail...and bedroom...and listening on my phone!
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.
...
PS
A democrat congress running the Iraq war would be like a democrat congress running the Vietnam war.
We all know what a mistake that was
...
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.
...
PS
A democrat congress running the Iraq war would be like a democrat congress running the Vietnam war.
We all know what a mistake that was
...
Sign this Appeal.
This site is an Appeal For Redress in support of our mission in Iraq.
An Appeal For Redress is an authorized means for active duty military to submit a grievance to Congress. It can be signed by Active Duty, Reserve, or National Guard military personnel.
It is authorized by DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6.
The wording of the Appeal for Redress is:
As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.
If you are active duty, reservist or national guard, please Sign this Appeal.
Most service members fully support the war in Iraq and feel calls to retreat by Congress and attacks by our media on our conduct and mission act to motivate our enemy while demoralizing our support at home, directly increasing the threat we face and resulting in greater American casualties. This Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to Congress to fully support us and actively oppose media attacks on our mission and our morale.
This Appeal will be delivered to members of Congress.
http://www.appealforcourage.org/
Posted by kidlibrarian at 10:46 AM : May 04, 2007
The problem is that Bush doesn't care what the people want. he has been told by his advisers, notably Cheney and Rove, that the president is something akin to a king and can do as he pleases. Of course this runs counter to what a president really is, an employee of the people and answerable to them most of all. In spite of what Bush has been told (and what a surprising number of his supporters seem to believe) he really must do as WE say, WE are HIS boss, not the other way around.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey%u2019s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress%u2019 vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims%u2019 hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
%u2026that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Sound familiar?
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison defeated the fascist nazi muslims 200 years ago
And again 100 years ago with Theodore Roosevelt
Tunisia in 1881 by France and Libya in 1911 by Italy. By then most of the Islamic world was under Christian domination. With the Ottoman Empire defeated in WW1, secularist Turkish rebels in 1923 overthrew the last Islamic Caliphate,
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6bdec278-6a71-4436-bc4d-29d1c54b0ad7
December 8, 1941/September 12, 2001
The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.
Posted by david1737 at 01:27 PM : May 04, 2007
We couldn't have played into his hands any better--we sent troops over for him and his men to attack....OPEN TARGETS...something he did not have before we attacked Iraq!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 85 Comments