Breaking-Hillary Introduces-BILL TO DE-AUTHORIZE WAR-He Cant Accept Reality-So Bring Reality To Him

[kpete]

5/3/2007
From the Senate: Hillary Statement on Deauthorizing the War


SENATOR CLINTON: Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

............

Washington, DC -- In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

"The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," said Senator Clinton on the Senate floor.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1525

[eleny]

1. K&R

[goclark]

22. Does anyone have the video of Byrd and Clinton?

[patrice]

2. That brightens my day. Good on Hillary!! Keep pushing All!

That's what Bill Richardson was saying. He was also saying to be prepared to follow the bill all of the way to the Supreme Court.

NGU!

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Excellent!

:kick:

[Richard D]

4. 5 year anniversary.

Shit. Just Shit. Five years of this stupidity and violence.

I'm happy Clinton did this. It's a good thing.
But it took too fucking long.

[bullimiami]

5. since the constitution vests the authority to declare war solely with the congress

they should also have the sole authority to end the declaration as well.

[morgan2]

11. thats something I've been wondering about

is there any historical precedence for this? Can Congress revoke a military authorization, without the presidents signature? Technically all the Constitution says is Congress has the power to declare war, which can be construed both ways.

[SOS]

56. Gulf of Tonkin repealed in 1971

Neither Tonkin nor IWR were actual declarations of war by Congress.

Tonkin was repealed in 1971. Nixon opposed repeal starting in 1969, but signed the bill in 1971.
Nixon simply continued the war saying it was his constitutional exercise of the President's authority to protect the troops.

Clinton is right. The IWR authorized Bush to use military force to "disarm" Iraq, if peaceful and diplomatic means failed.
Of course Bush didn't pursue peaceful and diplomatic means and rushed to war to "disarm" an unarmed country.
The IWR is now completely irrelevant and should be repealed as soon as possible.
Let Bush invoke his executive authority and own 100% of his war.

[rodeodance]

33. recall that Sen. Warner brought it up a few months ago (but I have not heard of it since).

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. This is a good step but HRC continues to vote to finance a war she allegedly now opposes

She is for it--while she is against it...

[MethuenProgressive]

14. "She is for it--while she is against it..." Shouldn't you put quotes around Rove-isms?

Allegedly a Rove-ism, that is. :boring:

[DURHAM D]

7. So, the Dems can probably get that bill passed in the House

and Senate but Bush will veto. What then? We can't override a veto.

[robinlynne]

10. doesn't matter, does it? congress has budget power to not fund the war anymore.

If it passes in the two houses, it is passed. Of course, I am only saying how I see it; I do not actually know how the law works. But it seems to me that that is the end of authorization for the war. period.

[DURHAM D]

19. I don't know what this means. As I posted elsewhere

I tried to call Clinton's office to get an explanation but it was after 6:00pm and they were closed.

What Clinton and Byrd are talking about is separate from funding.

[rodeodance]

34. it is undecided as of yet. see this from WPost

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.

[jazzjunkysue]

31. Right. It's virtually the save bill as yesterday with the same votes.

Plus it asks the GOP to openly admit fault.

Bad idea from a presidential candidate.

If she has to do such a silly thing to get media coverage, something's wrong with her campaign.

[w4rma]

60. Yes. Bush just vetos Hillary's photo-op. She knows that this does nothing to end the war before

Bush is replaced by a new President. And if Hillary or Obama win the nomination, I fully expect the new President to be a Republican.

The only advantage to it is that it puts Republican Congressfolks on record as supporting the continuation of Bush's war.

[robinlynne]

8. EXCELLENT MOVE! I was really worried about what they might do next...

[wuushew]

9. Don't get too excited you are going to be waiting a while

"I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard"

[librechik]

12. and most of the intransigent Rs have said Fall would be their deadline...

at least regarding the Surge.

so the babies get to control the agenda after all.. they just didn't want the Dems to win on this.

:mad:

[wuushew]

17. Be sure to remind Republicans and those ignorant of time

that fall starts on September 23rd this year and that the first opportunity for the Senate to meet is bright and early the next day which is Monday the 24th.

[sandnsea]

13. I'm seriously impressed

Very Seriously. Good for her, excellent!!

[Neoleonidas]

15. Are the Dems holding back with big red meat guns?

And they'll WOW us in 2008?

Can we hope that? it's not a difficult stratagem.....you just have to "keep your powder dry" a bit longer.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. don't get your hopes up; a good message, but far from a done deal...

deauthorizing the UMF would be just like any other law the legislature passes- it would still be subject to Presidential veto.

Even if a veto could be overridden, Bush would still have something like 90 days under the war powers act, and knowing this unitary executive, would probaby ignore it altogether (which would/should force impeachment onto the table).

This is a shrewd political move as well by Hillary; surely the intention is to diminish the damage done by her "yes" vote to authorize the war. Even if this bill goes down to defeat, she is on record for taking the bold step to end the war.

[Spiffarino]

37. So a simple majority won't do it?

That seems wrong, given that Congress has the sole authority to declare war.

No, I don't mean YOU are wrong...I mean the standard is wrong. A simple majority should be sufficient to stop a war. It should be the damned hardest thing in the world to make war happen and the easiest to end.

[Polemicist]

47. Gov. Richardson said Bush can't veto this...

When he made the recommendation to revoke the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution(AUF). Richardson also said there would be some Constitutional questions concerning this course. Gov. Richardson recommended this course of action last week during the Democratic Debates.

Congress does have powers derived from a vote of it's members, that aren't subject to Presidential affirmation or veto. One example would be impeachment of government officials. The President can't veto an impeachment vote. That power is given in the Constitution to Congress alone.

I believe the power to declare war is also given to Congress alone and isn't subject to Presidential affirmation or veto. The little research I have done on the web (with limited time) is to read the Declaration of War resolutions for both World War I and World War II. In both those situations, the President asked Congress for a declaration of war. Congress met in Joint session, with both the House and Senate together and voted on a declaration of war. From the moment the vote was tallied, America was at war. The resolution didn't appear to go to the President for his signature. I couldn't find any evidence that either war declaration was signed by the President. And nothing I saw notated a Presidential signing of the declaration. I surmise it's not required on a declaration of war.

The only role the President has concerning war, under the Constitution, is to act as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. So both the WWI and WWII war declarations, didn't ask for Presidential agreement, the express wording instructed the President to marshall the Armed Forces of America against the enemy. So a Declaration of War approved by Congress, gives the President his marching orders, it doesn't ask for his approval or assent.

And if Congress has sole power to declare war, they have sole power to end war.

[maddezmom]

49. thanks for that bit of info

:)

[Spiffarino]

57. That makes more sense

If Congress has sole authority to declare war, why would it require a signature from the President? I think Clinton and Byrd are on firm Constitutional ground this case. I'd like to hear http://www.law.gwu.edu/faculty/profile.aspx?id=1738">Jonathan Turley's take on this.

[Raksha]

18. My opinion of Sen. Hillary Clinton just went WAAAAY up!!! n/t

[shadowknows69]

21. Mine too

mine too. Let's hope it goes somewhere.

[gollygee]

63. Mine too

if she's doing this to win votes, it's working here anyway

[Indy Lurker]

20. This makes some sense

I didn't really understand the deadlines or benchmarks.

In general, the idea of decreasing resources if a war (or business or project for that matter) starts to fail seems like it can only lead to a death spiral.

Either your at war or your not.

The trick will be not being blamed when the country and the region fully implode.

My limited understanding is that Iran will support/arm the Shiites, and the Arab countries will support/arm the Sunnis in a bid for power and resources in Iraq.

[AwakeAtLast]

23. Can I get a HELL YEAH!!!

:woohoo:

K & R!

Get it passed, people! You know what to do!

:woohoo:

[lovuian]

24. Well Hillary getting in with Byrd the Dove

the hawks are getting chummy with the Doves all of a sudden
but if it means our children can come home then thats great

[freedomfries]

25. good idea!

go for it, hillary!

[ProSense]

26. Clinton-Byrd is a gimmick!

Dodd on Clinton-Byrd

More here and here.

[The Count]

73. How dare they upstage Trippi's gimmick? That brought $100,000 in one day?

I feel your pain.:nopity:

[ElizabethDC]

27. K&R - Excellent!

[rodeodance]

29. Wonderful

[bvar22]

28. What shall we tell the mothers of the children....

...who will be slaughtered between NOW and October?

"Your child had to die because it was politically expedient for the presidential campaign in 2008."

[derby378]

30. Fuckin' A!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[jazzjunkysue]

32. If they're serious, the dems will confess to the oil sharing deal that

kicks in next month. They'll have to explain that the us casualties were for an oil deal.

Not going to happen.

The "war" will end when the dems explain this to the american people, or the chimperor is out of office.

[gristy]

35. I like this

Good for you, Sen. Clinton.

[Spiffarino]

36. Well ain't this the damned Ruby Slippers?

They're just now realizing they've had the power to do this all along. Have they just recently read the Constitution to determine which branch of government has the power to authorize and fund a war?

I don't mean to be too disparaging, and I'm grateful for this act. I only wish they'd started the process months ago so maybe a few more kids would be coming home. 104 dead last month alone, and how many more until October comes?

[Polemicist]

55. I agree with your concerns....

If this is the way to bypass Bush, then why didn't we start with this in January? It sure would have saved a bunch of lives. The NY Times said Senator Byrd has been pushing this since last winter. There's not a person on Capitol Hill that knows the Constitution better than Senator Byrd.

I suspect that the Democratic leadership saw the funding avenue as the best chance to get a bipartisan agreement and to convince Bush to go along. Plus, there wouldn't have been any Constitutional questions if Bush had just signed the Supplemental Funding bill. But now we know that Bush isn't going to work with us, so I think the gloves are going to come off now. Plus the public can see the Democrats tried the less confrontational method first. This deal will be tried in the media for sure. We gain points in public opinion the route we traveled. Unfortunately, that doesn't bring back the brave soldiers we have lost while trying to end the war. I don't mean to be crass, but sometimes politics is cruel.

I've been screaming for two months, that Bush can't Constitutionally veto a war funding bill. I've argued that his veto was unConstitutional and an infringement on Congress' Constitutional war powers. But nobody seemed to agree with me on that, at least here at DU.

Repealing the AUF is a much clearer War Powers Constitutional question and it is much more clearly within the sole authority of Congress. And I believe it's the proper "work around" of Bush's authority. And we could move quickly on this issue, if we want. Lets mobilize to help get this repeal voted on as quickly as possible. Cause if the AUF is repealed effective October 23, 2007 (the 5 year anniversary of the AUF), Bush will have to start withdrawing troops almost immediately to safely meet that deadline.

I gotta give Hillary some props. She was slow to action, but knew what to do when she acted.

[MazeRat7]

38. Damn..I've become entirely too jaded....

In all honesty... my very first thought when reading this post was... "well she had to do something to defuse her initial (and to some degree on-going) support for this war"...

But you know... while that may be the motive, I'll gladly take it if it means an end to this long nightmare of death, waste, and destruction.

So sure, go ahead and make some points with the voters. But if your serious and willing to go to any length to stop this runaway train Ms Clinton, you've got my support 100%.

At least where ending the war is concerned. As for the primaries... well that is a completely different matter. ;)

MZr7

[avrdream]

39. As they say down here in Oz:

"Give it a go!"

It is definitely worth a try to do this, regardless of who it is coming from.

[calimary]

40. That's more like it, but why wait til October? Hmmm... wonder how

many more troops will have died by then?

[Senator]

41. Only Impeachment is a Substantive Act

This timetabling, De-IWRing, the Fund-Cutting Hoax, and the rest are just impotent posturing. They have no magic potion to circumvent "Rule By Signing Statement."

It's now like marital infidelity. I wish they'd just admit they're screwing around and stop coming up with these increasingly elaborate lies. It's insulting.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[AtomicKitten]

42. Brava!!

:applause:

[ClayZ]

43. Yay! K and R

[liberalla]

44. I like it. I hope this gets some traction.

[and-justice-for-all]

45. its about damn time someone kicked shrub in the nuts!! nt

[MadHound]

46. And does she expect Bush to actually sign this into law? Can the House override his veto?

The answer to both questions is NO, and thus this simply becomes another empty gesture on the part of Hillary and the Dems.

We have viable option to bring this war to an end before January '09, and that is defunding the war. Bury those supplementals deep in committee and starve the beast. Any other action take by the Dems is both futile, and in facts needlessly prolongs the death and suffering experienced by our troops and innocent Iraqis.

It is past time for the Dems to stop fiddle fart fucking around and do what the American people elected them to do, which is stop the damn war ASAP. These useless bills, non-binding resolutions and empty gestures do absolutely nothing to bring a halt to the death and destruction. It is past time for the Dems to do the right, moral thing and defund this war.

Anything else is simply playing politics to convince voters that they're doing something about the war, when in reality the killing and dying continues unabated.

[LizW]

48. Yes, why even give Bush a chance for another grandstanding photo op?

Congress has consitutional authority to end this war right now, and Bush would have no option but to go along.

DEFUND.

Bush lied us into a war for the benefit of his corporate cronies. DEFUND.

Come clean with America and DEFUND THE WAR.

Everything else is just posturing.

[Selatius]

50. If Congress declares an end to war, I am not sure, but it may be that Bush couldn't stop that.

The power to declare war (and declare an end to war) is vested only in Congress alone. It does not need a president's signature to exercise that power.

[LizW]

51. But as a practical matter, how do they enforce it?

If Bush ignores the revocation and continues the war, what does Congress do?

It seems that they would be back in the same place, faced with a decision to defund the war or not. Bush can just start calling it something else.

[Polemicist]

52. Bush can't win by ignoring Congress' War Powers...

And he knows that. First of all, Bush himself has already tacitly acknowledged the supremacy of Congress in "Declaring War" or "Authorizing Force" when he went to Congress in 2002 and requested Authorization for the Use of Force against Iraq (AUF). He's gonna have a hard damn time making any kind of successful Constitutional, legal, or media arguments against Congress' authority to repeal an Authorization he knew in 2002 that he had to get from Congress to start the war. What has changed since 2002 to the present to make the President think he can now fight wars without Congressional authority? He knew he had to have Congressional Authorization in 2002. I believe the only change is this Congress isn't as friendly to the President as the last one. That's not a valid reason for Bush to use to change his tune now.

The War Power Resolution of 1973, passed over Nixon's Veto is the statutory law of the land in this regard. And it places full power in Congress' hands to authorize or not authorize War or Force, outside of the first 60 days of hostilities. Above and beyond that statutory authority, there is the authority derived from the Constitution, in which war powers are divided, not equal. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the president is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). Bush would lose in the courts on the Constitutional question, that is clear to me.

If Bush ignores the War Powers of Congress, then he must be impeached. That is the final solution to that problem. And if his VP does the same, he will also be impeached.

[EVDebs]

59. WPA of '73 requires truthful 'clear' 'situations' and 'circumstances'

if you actually READ the language of that law...

War Powers Resolution
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

Hmmm. 'clearly indicated' (truthful) 'situations' and 'circumstances'

"SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

Patently, this is NOT the case with Iraq ! All based upon LIES, ergo...And besides, now the 'war' is over and we need to redefine the mission or get out since the mission has morphed into an occupation.

[EnviroBat]

53. K&R

[jayfish]

54. This Is lame.

The end result of this stunt is that Congress will have to de-fund the war. Even if a Veto is overridden, Bush can ignore the bill and keep troops in Iraq under the umbrella of his "war powers". The only thing to do then (again) is cut the funding. The only chance this would have of making any difference what-so-ever would be if it turned the American people against Bush. Unfortunately they already are against the toad. the time for political maneuvering is over. Either cut the funding now or STFU about it.

Jay

[snappyturtle]

58. I'm skeptical of Hillary's motives. Why now? After all ,her

patience with the president has been astounding! Of course, I won't kick a gift horse in the mouth...whatever can be done, belatedly or not, is welcome. imho

[noamnety]

61. Why extend the war for an arbitrary symbolic anniversary?

Damn, that kind of bullshit pisses me off.

Just revoke the damn thing already. Nobody is gonna be impressed that the senate waited til the 5 year anniversary. It's arbitrary and sadistic as hell to continue to bloodshed in order to time the glorious end date for a meaningless anniversary. Let's just pretend the 5 year anniversary is May 5.

[ooglymoogly]

66. second that....cinque de mayo nt

[IronLionZion]

62. "Madam president" has a really nice ring to it nt

[Cameron27]

64. Great idea!

K&R

[ooglymoogly]

65. great news. k&r

[cooolandrew]

67. She keeps this up she may become my fave candidate.

[acmavm]

68. I am just one of many who will take this BETTER LATE THAN NEVER

action by Senator Clinton. While this may be (but I hope not) a cynical attempt to regain ground with Democrats everywhere, I will let that go and just concentrate on the fact that something will finally be introduced to take away the Whatever-Guy-He-Is-Today's false impression that the IWR gave him unlimited power of life and death over the world.

[dave_p]

69. WH will reject it

Ignore this stupid headline, there's no confusion.

Where's the power specified to revoke authorization? A blank check is just that. You can only stop it by stopping the payment.

It was a nice try on Hillary's part, but this Bill's going nowhere. Time to stop the funding.

[RiverStone]

70. Better late then never...

I question's HRC's motives being connected to political expediency; yet, I'll give credit where it's due.

Good on ya Hillary! De-authorize the whole fucking mess that Shrub made in Iraq (of course, with her & others IWR vote in the first place).

[understandinglife]

71. DO IT NOW ... NO EXCUSES ... SAVE OUR TROOPS, NOW.

[The Count]

72. great move! keep them coming! yeay!

Now, that's DOING something about one's mistakes (much more is due, but this counts!)

[etherealtruth]

74. "it is time for Congress to bring reality to him"

Good for Hillary!

[ProudDad]

75. Good for HER!

I give credit where credit is due.

[David Zephyr]

76. I give some credit for this. She knows she has to make nice with a lot of us. She's doing so.

Hillary is not my choice for our party's nominee. That said, she is running a solid campaign, politically speaking, and it is apparent that she knows her IWR vote has cost her a lot of support that would have naturally been there.

I applaud her for this move.

[Dr. Death]

77. Constitutional scholars please correct me if I'm wrong,

but I do not believe a veto applies in this case.

This is not a bill that the President has to sign into law.

The Iraq War Authorization was an authorization by congress, not a bill: there is no "law" that we have a war with Iraq. There was a congressional authorization to go to war.

Therefore, if Congress ends that authorization, the war must end.

There is no bill to veto.

If Bush ignores it, then we have a constitutional crisis. In that case, impeach him.

[ProSense]

80. Clinton-Byrd is not binding, and includes reauthorization. Richardson just

called for binding de-authorization which would require a two-thirds majority vote and likely Supreme Court involvement.

[DemSoccerMom]

78. WAY TO GO, HILLARY!

:kick:

While I've ALWAYS been a huge Hillary supporter (even back when Bill was in office), I'm a little disappointed that this took her so long to do. However, now that she HAS done it, I'm tickled pink (or blue, as it were).

:patriot:

[Norrin Radd]

79. Good on her!