Biden Introduces Bill to Change the Mission

[justinrr1]

SEN. BIDEN Introduces Legislation to Repeal 2002 War Authorization



Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) introduced legislation (S.J. Res 15) today to repeal the original 2002 Iraq war authorization, replacing it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq. The new mission - to start immediately - would be limited to: combating terrorists, training Iraqis and force protection for our troops. Sen. Biden's legislation requires that the President start withdrawing troops in 4 months and sets a goal of getting all troops that are unnecessary for the new mission out by March 2008. The legislation also specifically states that nothing in the new, limited authority allows the President to attack Iran or Syria.


"Yesterday, I cast my vote to protect our soldiers from the tragic effects of President Bush's misguided strategy and his incompetent mismanagement of the Iraq war," said Sen. Biden. "Today, I am introducing legislation which could truly end this war and get our troops home. I voted for the emergency spending bill because as long as a single soldier is in Iraq, I will do everything I can to make sure he or she has the best protection we can provide. For example, if we did not get this emergency money into the pipeline, we would leave our soldiers and Marines without the Mine Resistant Vehicles I have been fighting for and that this Administration has denied them. But now we must ratchet up the pressure on our Republican colleagues and force them to vote on whether they want to continue this war with no end in sight, or bring our troops home from Iraq without leaving chaos behind. The bill I am introducing today will force them to confront that choice and keep the pressure on Republicans in the Senate to stop supporting the President and start backing a path out of Iraq."


Sen. Biden has long been a proponent of repealing the 2002 Iraq War Authorization, first discussing the idea with Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne on January 5, 2007. In a speech to the Brookings Institution on Feb. 15, 2007, Sen. Biden said "The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq." Coupled with the Biden-Gelb plan for a federal system in Iraq, Sen. Biden believes rewriting the authorization is the best way to start bringing our troops home while protecting America's interests.


"We have to keep relentless pressure on Republicans in Congress - and that's why I'm introducing this bill today," said Sen. Biden. "If the President won't change course, we need their votes to overcome his resistance. So day after day, vote after vote, we will keep pressure on him and our Republican colleagues who support his disastrous policies in Iraq. We will make them vote against the will of the people again and again and sooner or later they will come around and we'll get the votes we need to stop this President. That's how this war will end and I will work every day to make that day come as soon as possible."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. This is something, at least

but will Lincoln and Pryor, the two DINOs in my state, go along with it? Since both vote pro Bush most of the time, I doubt it. But don't worry, Lincoln will "protect life" by making sure no woman has any choice.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. No it is nothing. nt.

[tularetom]

2. Too late Joe - your prez campaign is DOA

Of all the Dem senators who talked tough and then caved, nobody talked any tougher than this jackass. And of the presidential candidates in the Senate nobody caved quicker.

He's a day late and a dollar short with this bill - even if it passed bush already has his money so he'd just ignore it.

Biden's 15 minutes are over.

[jillan]

6. "Yesterday, I cast my vote to protect our soldiers from the tragic effects of President Bush's

misguided strategy and his incompetent mismanagement of the Iraq war"

I don't agree with his vote either, but at least he had the balls to come out AHEAD of the vote and state his case. Not wait until the vote was over. Biden and Dodd were the only candidates that showed any balls yesterday.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Oh yes that will go real far.

Perhaps we can have a Useless Gesture of the Week campaign to buffalo all of us blogbarians into forgetting about how we just got snookered, about how the party we elected to end the war just voted to keep it going at an accelerated pace.

[jillan]

5. Biden wants to start bringing the troops home in 4 months, and tie bsh's hands from going to war

with Iran or Syria.

And that's a bad thing because?

[calimary]

9. It's not a bad thing. It may well be a NOTHING thing, though.

Unfortunately, we now have a very strong and long-standing precedent that's been set. ANYTHING on paper that passes this schmuck's desk for his signature also gets a string attached - his own personal little fine-print fingers-crossed-behind-his-back addendum that is more commonly known as The Signing Statement. He'll sign whatever it is and then just add on his own little free-ride ticket that lets him nullify whatever it is as it applies to him.

The sad thing is that this has been allowed to stand for - what is it? HUNDREDS? Maybe near a couple of THOUSAND little "yes, but's" that have gone unchallenged, unopposed, unassailed, unchecked. Nobody's said "peep" about them. It's very likely too late to make a stink about them now, and start at this late date to take a stand against them. And there is NOTHING, and as we've seen this week, NO ONE who will try to stand in the way and keep him from abusing power yet again, for maybe the THREE-THOUSANDTH time. He'll just put his little "yes, but this doesn't apply to me" on the end of it and that will be that. He's going to invade anyway, if it comes to that.

Who will say NO to him?

Who HAS said NO to him?

Who's had the guts?

Who's tried to stop him before? How'd that work out? Who stayed with it? How many allies did he or she get? Even when they had the vote of the people behind them, how firm did their backbones remain?

It's just a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE precedent that's been set and allowed to stand.

Horrible.

Which is why it's SO crucial, SO vital to the continuing existence of our nation and our Constitution, to IMPEACH these bastards. BOTH of them. Because if we do not do so, that, too, will set a precedent for future generations. All they'll have to do is point to this era to prove that they, too, are above the law and do anything they damned well please, the Constitution (which they took a sacred oath of office on the Bible to PRESERVE, PROTECT and DEFEND) be damned.

It's just a horrible precedent that's been allowed to stand. I'm not sure how we overturn it. We HAVE TO, but I'm still struggling to come to terms with this week, which was most disheartening in the backbone department (or lack thereof). I ardently hope that this won't come around, in later years, to be ANOTHER one of those situations in which we're left saying "um... we TRIED to warn you. We TRIED to get you to do something about it. We TRIED to get your attention. We TOLD YOU this was going to be trouble. But you wouldn't listen. Now, whatchagonnado?:

[jillan]

10. I don't know what the answer is either.

The thing about impeaching the idiot, which needs to be done, is they (the dems) can't even get enough votes to get a timetable on this war.
And when I think about what they did to Clinton it just makes me ill.

The one thing I really like in what Biden is trying to do is stop this administration from starting a war with Iran. Because you know those cards are already on the table.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. How 'bout we dig up Saddam and put him back in power, too.

Ya can't make this stuff retroactive, Joe.

[justinrr1]

8. Why cant you?

This is changing the authorization going forward instead of staying under the current authorization. Probably doesnt have the votes but lets roll with this for a while and see if we can peel off some of those 17 Repukes that are needed

[justinrr1]

11. Bump

For the man with the plan.

[IndianaGreen]

12. We could have given Saddam Jenna Bush in partial payment for what we did to him

and by putting him back in power, Saddam would have taken care of all the pro-Iranian Shias, the traitorous Kurds, and the Al-Qaeda element.

When we hung Saddam, we hung ourselves.