Truthout: Congressman Acts to Revoke Iraq War Resolution

[marmar]

Congressman Acts to Revoke Iraq War Resolution
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 12 January 2007

In response to President Bush's speech Wednesday night, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have rebuked his plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq.

Among Democrats, strategies for gradual draw-downs or strategic redeployments have been proposed and are being considered. Legislation to force the president to get authorization from Congress for a troop escalation has been proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) has joined Senator Kennedy's call; co-authoring similar legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Representative Abercrombie is the Chairman of the powerful Air-Land Subcommittee which oversees military ground forces and air power. Senator Harry Reid stated Thursday that he has enough Republican support to pass a non-binding resolution of disapproval for the president's plan.

One Democratic member of the House of Representatives has taken a more drastic step.

Congressman Sam Farr introduced legislation Thursday that would repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, essentially pulling the rug out from under the president.

Revoking of the authorization that gave war powers to the president would stop the "surge" in its tracks and would mandate an immediate withdrawal of US Forces from Iraq.

Accompanying his resolution, Congressman Farr issued this statement: "The longer this war drags on, the clearer it becomes that it is the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Trying to make up for the fact that the administration insisted on going into Iraq with too few troops more than three years ago by escalating our involvement now is not a 'new strategy.' There is a way forward, but that way is through withdrawing, not sending more troops."

Congressman Farr gave some background on this effort Wednesday in an interview on "The Peter B. Collins Radio Show."

Farr outlined his view about Congressional war powers: "We strict constitutionalists think that the president needs a new resolution. This president and the former president have ignored this."

"When the Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate, they insisted that President Clinton had to have permission to go into Kosovo."

Three votes were taken in the House. "The first vote was to support the war; it failed. The second vote was to oppose the war; it failed. The third vote was to do nothing about it; it failed."

Thursday, when asked about cutting funding for the occupation in Iraq, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "I don't think Congress has the authority to do it." McConnell added, "You can't run a war by a committee of - you know - 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate." McConnell supported legislation in November of 1993 that set a timetable for the military action in Somalia by cutting off funding.

At this point, it is unlikely Congressman Farr will garner the support needed to pass this bill. As with all legislation, it will be subject to a presidential veto if it passes both houses of Congress. Thus, Farr will need support from 67 Senators and 290 members of the House if this action is to succeed.

The table has been set for a constitutional battle pitting Congress against the president. In the court of public opinion, Congress seems to have the upper hand. A CBS/AP poll conducted after Bush presented his plan to the nation showed only 37 percent support for his strategy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Renner is a reporter and radio producer and a recent graduate of the University of California at Berkeley

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011207R.shtml

[Tellurian]

1. YES>YES>YES>>>>>>>>

Congressman Farr gave some background on this effort Wednesday in an interview on "The Peter B. Collins Radio Show." Farr outlined his view about Congressional war powers: "We strict constitutionalists think that the president needs a new resolution. This president and the former president have ignored this."

You've GOT TO BRING THE FIGHT to the EXecutive Branch!!

BRILLIANT..!!!!!!

Tell McConnell to Shut UP and SIT down!

[marmar]

6. McConnell is a complete jackass....

I was ready to throw my coffee cup through the TV listening to him.

[Tellurian]

14. Agreed..

He is one of the most repulsive human beings on the planet.
I picture him nude with all his rings and things on those pudgy sausage like fingers of his,
chasing horses, cows and pigs into the barn at feeding time.. Then I can laugh at the sheer hypocrisy
dripping from his mouth. The animals having more credibility than this pathetic excuse for a Congressman.

[Peace Patriot]

2. A committee of 535 people probably can't run a war, but they can stop one--

in fact, that's what Congress is FOR--to stop out-control executives from conducting wars of choice. You read up on your Jefferson and your Madison and you find that's exactly what they were thinking about when they divided up the federal government into three EQUAL branches, and gave SOLE POWER to declare war and to fund war to Congress, the branch of government closest to the people. And they counted on WE, THE PEOPLE, to see that our Congress did its duty.

They didn't count on Bushite corporations "counting" all our votes with "trade secret" proprietary programming code, but, if they could have known about that, I think they would have had confidence that a people with a tradition of democracy and freedom--and a Constitution designed by them--would figure that one out, and restore transparent vote counting.

Worms like McConnell are more than likely not legitimate representatives of the American people, 70% of whom want this war ended now. You can probably figure out who Diebold/ES&S put into office just by how they fall on the Iraq War issue. And I think you can also figure that anti-Iraq War Democrats probably won by far bigger margins that is apparent, and that many more of them won than are seated in Congress. (TruthIsAll estimates that we won 40 to 50 seats, not just 30.) (And the Senate is still screwed up partly because only 1/3 was up for reelection this time.)

[Tellurian]

4. What does this mean?

"and that many more of them won than are seated in Congress. (TruthIsAll estimates that we won 40 to 50 seats, not just 30.)"

Are you saying these seats were stolen by election fraud?

How does TruthIsAll know this?

[tritsofme]

7. TIA is all knowing and all powerful.

There is a 99.9988998% probability that this is true.

Do not question sacred cows, for fear of being stoned.

[Tellurian]

10. My favorite cows are

the sacred ones..

But, I learned long ago, "I'm from Missouri"..."the show me state",
has served me well when I plan to back an issue all the way.
I like having the goods in my hand.

[MadMaddie]

3. This is the crux of * policy...and by revoking this power he has

nothing left .....except to get impeached....this may work..

[Tellurian]

5. MadMaddie..

I believe you're right.

I've had 8 yrs of Constitutional/Common Law training.. If we ignore the shredding
of the Constitution and proceed as if it doesn't exist, Bush is going to have to
admit the changes made by him to the Constitution were done under a fraudulent
premise...The Iraq War..

But the fight has to be laid squarely on his shoulders, demanding answers to why
the change to a Federalist representation of the Constitution and the supreme
powers he's bestowed upon himself.

When the American people realize this; all Hell is going to break loose.

[calimary]

8. Hey, DUers! PLEASE make sure when you call YOUR reps, push

Sam Farr's proposal - HARD. They have so much on their plate at the moment that we need to make sure this one hasn't been overlooked. And if they know WE know about it, they'll be that much more sensitive to it, AND sensitive to the fact that THEIR EMPLOYERS - that's US, the voters, the constituents - want it and are aggitating for it.

[Tellurian]

9. YESSSSSSS!

My Congressman is Patrick Kennedy.
He's love to hear from me on this issue..

[calimary]

11. AHA! I bet he would, at that.

The nice thing is, you'll also have an already-sympathetic ear. Someone like him will be far more likely to embrace an idea like this, particularly if it's got a powerful outboard motor in back, pushing it through these choppy waters. A powerful motor like you - and others - who are taking the trouble to call him and point this out. They pay attention to the volume, people. They take note of what's moving the meter out there, particularly if someone goes to the extra trouble of calling them, personally, to plead the case. The way it always worked, as I observed it when I worked in radio, was that ONE person calling in was presumed to be representative of many more who felt the same way but for various reasons did not call in. The whole - "if you're saying it, other people are thinking it" type of thing. Depending on market size, one call was considered worth maybe ten others, or dozens, or 100, or 1,000, or more. People who take the trouble, who go the extra mile, to get off their duffs and weigh in on something, wind up speaking for what is PERCEIVED to be MANY MORE (Dang! There's that ol' PERCEPTION business again!). THAT is why the VERY small minority of religious wackos out there carry so much weight. Because they make themselves heard, while up until recently the rest of us sat back and either hoped for the best, assumed the general public was smarter, better-informed, better-grounded, or less gullible than they are. Squeaky wheels, you know. They make such a racket that it APPEARS as though there are many more of them than the numbers actually indicate. Therefore, they get a lopsided, disproportionate share of the attention and cooperation from lawmakers.

I swear to you on a Bible or a Holy Koran or a Torah or the top of Patrick Stewart's bald head - if they think you don't care, THEY WON'T, EITHER!!!

Apathy never got anybody anywhere.

[EndElectoral]

12. Farr's bill should be pushed by the Dems , but won't!!!

[marmar]

17. True that...sadly.

:(

[welshTerrier2]

13. sounds like a plan ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2287077

we need to do more than talk the talk; we have to walk the walk ...

[Tellurian]

15. welshTerrier2

ck your incoming...

[bleever]

16. Recommended.