Question concerning the Iraq resolution?

[Mass]

It has been noted (guess who did that) that Kerry's resolution does not actually state a firm date for troop withdrawal, but rather ask Bush for a timetable for withdrawal).

There is no question that, in all his speeches, Kerry talked about withdrawal before the end of the year though.

I have been looking at the previous Iraq withdrawal resolutions (Murtha, Feingold) and noticed they all contained an ambiguous language. I have been wondering whether it was not a constitutional issue, as the President is the CIC and the Senate cannot dictate him a firm date for withdrawal, but simply ask him for accountability on this issue (3 branches of government). Am I correct?


Here is Kucinich's resolution. Same thing. So I guess I am right.

Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States--

(1) to announce, not later than December 31, 2005, a plan for the withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Iraq ;

(2) at the earliest possible date, to turn over all military operations in Iraq to the elected Government of Iraq and provide for the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Iraq ; and

(3) to initiate such a withdrawal as soon as possible but not later than October 1, 2006.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS TO IMPLEMENT POLICY.

The President shall implement the policy expressed in section 3 by--

(1) taking all necessary steps to ensure the completion of Iraq's political transition to a constitutionally elected government by December 31, 2005, as called for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004), which was supported by the United States;

(2) establishing a plan for the withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Iraq limited only by steps to ensure the safety of such Armed Forces;

(3) establishing a plan for a transition of responsibility for internal security activities to the military forces of the Iraqi Government and a transition of United States military personnel to an advisory and support role;

(4) accelerating the training and equipping of the military and security forces of the Iraqi Government; and

(5) taking all appropriate measures to account for any missing members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens in Iraq prior to completion of the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq .
[/div[

[TayTay]

1. It a nit Mass.

You are correct in what you are saying. Plus, there would be difficulties in the actual logistics of moving that many troops and equipment out of the region. (And what if something bad does happen and a redeployment is needed instead.)

This is a tiny little nit to pick. The effect is to bog down the withdrawal movement in picayune details that can't be solved in advance. The bigger point is the call to withdraw.

[karynnj]

2. if Bush actually chose to go that way

I assume he would chose a different day, if only to be different, so either way it would need to be amended. Also, if things go on and the chaos gets worse, May 15 may seem too close and they might want to go for it and put in another date.

I'm sure that even if Bush took the entire idea, he would have a Republican take Kerry's amendment, change it (hopefully as little as Warner did Levin's ) and that would be the legislation.

[TayTay]

3. That may well happen.

But the Kerry comments are too well known now. It wouldn't really matter. Everyone knows that it wasn't Warner's resolution, but Levins.

[karynnj]

4. I agree - if it happens - it's Kerry's

and the Levin -> Warner fooled no one too. I was just meaning that things like the date can't be determined at this point and many things would be amended if it actually was used.