WP, Dionne: Senator Biden is studying possibility of reconsidering original Iraq war resolution

[DeepModem Mom]

Short-Circuiting the Surge
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, January 5, 2007; Page A17

....If Bush wants to continue or expand the Iraq war, Congress has precious few tools available to stop the commander in chief.

As a result, Democrats are quietly but urgently seeking ways of pressuring the president to change course, including the possibility of having Congress reconsider its original authorization of force, passed in October 2002....

***

Given the limited options, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, has suggested to his colleagues that the strongest response to the surge would be a congressional resolution explicitly opposing the step.

Whereas cutting off funds is a "hollow threat," Biden said in an interview this week, a congressional resolution could have a powerful effect if it drew support from the significant number of Republican senators who are increasingly alienated from Bush's policies. Biden, who expects to offer his proposal at a meeting of Democratic senators today, argued that an anti-surge resolution might not bind the president but would exert considerable pressure on him to reconsider his approach.

More intriguing, Biden is studying whether Congress might reconsider the original Iraq war resolution, now as out of date as the administration's prewar claims. The resolution includes references to a "significant chemical and biological weapons capability" that Iraq didn't have and repeated condemnations of "the current Iraqi regime," i.e., the Saddam Hussein regime that fell long ago. In effect, the resolution authorizes a war on an enemy who no longer exists and for purposes that are no longer relevant.

Biden candidly acknowledges that it is difficult to find precedent for reconsidering a war resolution. But his idea is not as far-fetched as it might seem, as legal scholars -- including Michael J. Glennon on this page last month -- have noted that the war being fought on behalf of the Maliki government bears little resemblance to the war Congress authorized. Yet his idea of revisiting the authority granted Bush could be a forceful way for Congress to reassert itself and encourage a full-scale debate on the future of American policy in Iraq and in Afghanistan....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401344.html

[Monkeyman]

1. Senator cut off the funding

[still_one]

9. No, that will only hurt us. What must be done is investigate, then impeach

The investigation will demonstrate the illegal activities this administration has and is doing, and impeach will in effect remove him from office.

As that is going on they can bring up resolutions or bills calling for getting out of Iraq, but I have no doubt they will be vetoed

Cutting funding off will only be used against us as NOT supporting the troops, but impeachment goes directly to the source of the problem, this administration

[IndyOp]

14. Investigations thatcould lead to impeachment will take a year or more...

The people on the ground in Iraq don't have that kind of time.

Biden's resolution, cutting off funding, begin the investigations simultaneously.

IF the Rethugs attempt to use cutting off funding as "not supporting the troops" we will have to fight this empty rhetoric with truth - cutting off funding and getting the troops out NOW will save lives and the money not spent on occupying Iraq can be spent on Veterans Benefits.

[still_one]

22. I hear you, but unfortunately I think until the Democrats build up a case

there is not much we can do. Murtha is going to get involved with the abuse of funding regarding Halliburton, and others, and that will help make the case

However, the MSM is still quite entrenched with this administration, and I can hear the propaganda being spewed by them now, how the Democrats don't want to protect our troops in battle, and so on, while at the same time not allowing the Democrats to explain the truth

The best example is the swift-boating of Kerry, and how the media allowed themseleves to be used

I just think that because of the mistakes the Democrats have made in the last six years, they have limited options.

Heck, what makes you think Congress would get a consensus to cut off the funding? That is why I think investigations are the best first step that can lead to many more possibilities

[NewJeffCT]

15. I agree with Biden that it's a hollow threat

As Barney Frank said on Olbermann the other night, the Pentagon budget for 2007 is one of the few the outgoing Republics passed last year. So, Bush has money to fund his escalation through the end of 2007 and there is not a lot Congress can do to stop him. And, if the troops are already there, Bush may try to force another patriotism/support the troops vote.

[babylonsister]

2. Big fat kick and nom. A way out, perhaps? nt

[MADem]

3. Senator Biden wants to be President Biden

That said, he's a sharp tactician. If anyone can pull it off and help the idea to gain traction, he can. He's got a very seasoned staff as well.

[Demobrat]

4. If he comes up with a way to get us out of there

and pulls it off I'll vote for him.

[Azathoth]

5. It's only a "hollow threat" if you are too cowardly to follow through on it Senator

Stop jerking around with meaningless political gestures and use the authority granted to you by the Constitution to put a check on this anti-American presidency. Dubya is a lame duck with a messianic complex who has convinced himself that he is Churchill in cowboy boots. You ain't gonna "discourage" him by passing resolutions you have no power to enforce.

[NewJeffCT]

17. The earliest they can cut off funding is for 2008

Barney Frank was on Olbermann the other night. He flatly stated that even though he was one of 14 to vote against funding last year, there is precious little they can do to stop Bush from escalating the war. The budget for the Pentagon was one of the few the Republics passed last year - so that gives Bush money through 2007.

I would hope they can do something before 2008 rolls around.

[IndyOp]

18. Kucinich says Bush will ask for up to $160 Billion supplemental this Spring

and Congress can deny him that supplemental.

Also - I just found this at ThinkProgress:

A recent Center for American Progress memo explains how Congress could — and should — prevent Bush from sending more troops into a civil war in Iraq without a clear mission. An excerpt:

Although the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need, it can place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran, came out strongly in opposition to escalation, saying, “We need to listen to the military experts, people like Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Abizaid, that say, ‘Listen, the surge isn’t going to work.’” Another newly elected member, Rep. Health Shuler (R-NC) was more circumspect. Shuler said he didn’t think escalation was “the solution” but would consider it if “that’s what our military leaders said.”

http://thinkprogress.org/

[NewJeffCT]

19. Well, Barney Frank must have been wrong then...

He sounded like it was inevitable and there was nothing much that could be done. Bush will cite his role as Commander-in-Chief in moving money from other areas of the Pentagon to fund his escalation - heck, he could move money from other agencies.

It would create a constitutional crisis, but one that would likely would not be solved overnight - thus, allowing Bush a little longer.

[IndyOp]

20. I think what Barney Frank was saying was that the 2007 Budget was passed

last September - and it was. But the amount requested won't cover all costs for 2007 so a supplemental will be inevitable.

[gkhouston]

23. still, October will be here before you know it. I'd like to think they can

do something before then, but that's no reason not to work on this.

[pacalo]

6. I like Biden's thinking on this.

[Nite Owl]

7. No fan of Biden

but he has been impressive lately. Reconsidering that vote would also bar people from saying the dems voted for this war too, it would clear the record. I think Murtha said something about not funding the 'surge', that it would take a considerable amount of money to do this and that every request would be thoroughly examined.

[cornermouse]

8. What's to reconsider?

Just admit you were given false information, made a mistake, and start pulling our people out of there. Why do people always have to try all this fancy footwork when a simple straightforward solution works just as well or better?

[unhappycamper]

10. Gee whiz, Joe.

Isn't 3006 enough? What's a 'good' number to call it a day & head back to the barn? 3500? 4006? Help me out here.

[paulk]

16. I don't understand your point

how is your post relevant to what Biden said?

Biden can't just order the pullout of our troops - he's not the President... and he, all by himself, can't cut off funding. So what are you getting at?

[DeepModem Mom]

11. a.m. kick

[Geek_Girl]

12. Why not do it all!

Cut funding, A congressional resolution against the War In IRAQ, Investigate and Impeach and any other measures that they can think of to stop this insanity.

[struggle4progress]

13. Start with a carefully limited public investigation, JB

The investigation should focus on matters related to Sections 1 - 4 (not the preamble) of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq and in particular should compare the reports required in 4(a) to the purposes of the resolution and the actual situation on the ground in Iraq. It would be desireable to have two or three other investigations (independent of the Joint Resolution investigation) into matters related to the Iraq war, such as war-profiteering or the Administration's current strategy in Iraq.

[blm]

21. Warner said last year he would call for a NEW RESOLUTION because civil war was

not part of the mission of the original IWR and would REQUIRE a new vote.

Surely Biden must be aware of this - it was part of the Iraq withdrawal debate early last summer.