home

Reid on Warner-Lugar

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:11:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

From Sargent:

Senator Reid Appreciate these two former Chairmen coming forward and expressing their clear discontent with the Administration’s policies in Iraq.

They clearly recognize there is no purely military solution in Iraq and that the war, on its current course, is making this nation less secure.

But they put a lot of faith in the President that he will voluntarily change course and voluntarily begin to reduce the large U.S. combat footprint in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Senator Reid is not as confident in the President’s willingness to change course voluntarily. In the fifth year of the war, we need strong legislation that compels the President to change course, change the mission, and begin the reduction of U.S. troops. That’s what Reed/Levin does. It is binding legislation, and that is the approach he prefers.

But what if Warner-Lugar was binding?

< Warner-Lugar: President Should Seek New War Authorization | Maliki: Iraq Ready To Stand Up Now; US Can Leave "Anytime It Wants" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Reid on Warner-Lugar | 41 comments (41 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    et al (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    I am very pleased to know that Reid and Levin have decided that they are qualified to micromanage the war.

    Up until I now I thought that the President was CIC.

    Have you ever read (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    Hamilton or Madison on the matter?

    Parent
    "But what if Warner-Lugar was binding?" (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by talex on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    Obviously we need something binding. But the current Warner-Lugar re-authorization is not it. You read some of the thoughts and ideas I had in the other thread.

    The idea of a re-authorization is appealing to me. Not so much for me personally but for the situation we face politically. Psychologically it is a much better approach than a timeline withdrawal. Part of the problem with some people in DC and even with some of the public is that withdrawal is defeat. They don't want defeat. But redefining the mission with a new "limited" re-authorization is much more palatable. It's not defeat - it's a new strategy for the facts on the ground.

    Everything we want to accomplish with a timeline or even with the fallacy of defunding can be accomplished with a "limited" re-authorization. It is just a different 'wrapper' that feels better.

    Reid and Pelosi should consider this approach and craft a proper bill and include key sensible and sympathetic Repubs in the process so that the Repubs can claim co-ownership. Co-ownership is a must IMO to get the votes we need to override Bush in both chambers.

    A bipartisan re-authorization could address not only the substance of what we want to accomplish but it could also address the political barriers that stand in our way.

    Parent

    Obviously we need something binding, talex. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    Here's a thought, talex.

    A binding statement from the Democrats that aftrer March 31, 2008 there will be no more funding bills introduced and passed for Bush's occupation of Iraq.

    And a binding statement from them that he is to have the troops home by then.

    And a question from them at the next press conference:

    "Are you Mr. President, and Mr. Secretary, prepared to leave troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?"

    Watch them squirm, watch them dance. They will not be able to say "yes." This is what the media and the Democrats should have been asking, over and over again, to frame this debate properly.

    You in, talex?

    Or do you prefer a debacle without end, talex?

    Take your pick. It's either one, or it's the other.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    And the answered would be:

    Why do you ask, Senator? Are you going to quiting supporting the troops?


    Parent
    grrrrrrrrr (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    And the answer would be:

    Why do you was ask, Senator? Are you going to quit supporting the troops?

    For some reason you seem to think that only you get to ask questions. That's middle school stuff.

    Parent

    Reading troubles again? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 05:48:23 PM EST
    Or just comprehension difficulties?

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 07:38:47 PM EST
    Whenever you can't think you try and blame someone else...

    Start on a fish rich diet..

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:05:22 AM EST
    Rhetorical question?

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    Why should I? The Constitution is available.

    Parent
    jesus (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by taylormattd on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:59:27 AM EST
    and what, pray tell, do you think the Constitution says about which branch has the authority to pass funds? Or which branch declares war?

    Parent
    taylormattd (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:20:28 AM EST
    And what branch asks for the declaration, and which branch is the CIC??

    Read the Constitution. Congress has the purse, and the overview. But it does not have the right to micromanage.

    Parent

    BTW - BTD (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Since you seem to want to refer to what the writers say, do you agree with this comment from the author of the 14th??

    Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, made the most precise statement about the character of the limitation contained in the "jurisdiction" clause:

    "[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

    This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

    It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country

    ."

    And NO I do not want to talk about immigration, the above is an exmple only.

    Parent

    I don;t think it means (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    what you think it means.

    Parent
    You must have really (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by taylormattd on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:57:36 AM EST
    hated it back in 1998 when the republicans "micromanaged" the troops in Bosnia by passing funding cutoff date.

    Parent
    talormattd (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    I never wanted us in that mess in the first place, called my Congress folks, etc. I didn't see where we had any real national interest...

    How ever, when Clinton sent the troops in I shut up and supported them. Have you done the same in Iraq by not calling for withdrawal, impeachment, moans about "war crimes," torture, etc.??

    The White House indicated Clinton would likely veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

    In a partial victory for Clinton, the House rejected a measure that would have cut off funding by the end of this year, six months before the U.S. troops are scheduled to pull out of Bosnia.

    Those voting to limit the Bosnia mission included liberal Democrats who have long argued for Europe to pay more of its way in defense, Republicans critical of Clinton's activist foreign policy, and members who fear the Bosnia mission is open-ended.

    Link

    WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 10) -- The House gave approval to a defense spending bill Thursday evening after Republicans stepped back from an effort to cut off funding for U.S. operations in Kosovo in less than four months.

    Link

    BTW - Did any bill defunding/limiting, etc funding  rach Clinton's  desk that he had to veto??

    BTW - Refusing to not fund something is not micromanaging. See my comment with the Constitutional extracts..

    Defunding, to me, when it is tied to a "certain date" is. If you say, "CIC you have no more money after X date for Y actions," you are clearly managing the details of whatever strategy/war/foreign policy he has in place.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:02:32 AM EST
    It is the U.S. Constitution (remember that pesky and inconvenient goddamn piece of paper?) that gives Congress
    ...the authority to require the top military commanders in Iraq to produce a plan for safely withdrawing our troops from the country. It can also require these commanders to give their best estimate of the cost of this plan. It can then appropriate this money, specifying that the funds be used for the withdrawal plan designed by the military.

        President Bush would then have the funding required to safely withdraw our troops from Iraq. He would not have the money to continue his war. If he chose to defy Congress by misusing the funds (and thereby jeopardizing the lives of our troops), then the law provides a simple and obvious remedy: Impeachment. While it is possible that Bush would choose to violate the law, jeopardizing both the lives of our troops and his presidency, it is reasonable to assume that he would comply with the law and not exceed his authority as president.

    Well... maybe it's not resaonable to assume that Bush would comply with the law since he has insisted on violating it so many times.

    BTW, I have to applaud your use of the term "micromanage" even though it was just a lame attempt at setting up a strawman you hoped someone would fall for. Any "managing" of Bush is by it's nature "micromanaging", since he's such a crooked little pipsqueak.

    "Let's face it, the yo-yo president of the U.S.A. knows nothing. He is a dunce. He does what he is told to do, says what he is told to say, poses the way he is told to pose. He is a fool."

    Now that we've cleared all that up, I'm sure you'll have no objection, a I will, to going back on topic in further comments here, right ppj?

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 12:28:46 PM EST
    BTW, I have to applaud your use of the term "micromanage" even though it was just a lame attempt at setting up a strawman you hoped someone would fall for. Any "managing" of Bush is by it's nature "micromanaging", since he's such a crooked little pipsqueak.

    Well I must say that after such a well grounded argument as that, plus a link to something called "truthout" I am so overwhelmed that it is hard to remember:

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

    Now I am sure you will tell me that the President doesn't get to say when troops are withdrawn. I mean him being merely the CIC.

    LOL

    So approve no more money if you dare to hurt the troops. But don't delude yourself that the Congress gets to micromanage a war. That would inlude sending or removing troops from the fied of battle.

    Parent

    Cut the crap, ppj. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    You should know after all these years that no one buys the swill you try to sell. Except the peasants.

    Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies

    Emergency supplemental funding for a war or for an occupation is not for the troops. It never has been for the troops. It will never be for the troops.

    NOT passing emergency supplemental funding does not hurt the troops. It never has hurt the troops. It will never hurt the troops.

    Not passing emergency supplemental funding is simply NOT FUNDING the occupation. That is all it is.
    ...
    The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops".

    ...the only way the funding can be said to be "for the troops" is if the intention is to keep them in Iraq for many years.

    Maliki: Iraq Ready To Stand Up Now; US Can Leave "Anytime It Wants"

    But who cares what the Iraqis think?

    They're sitting on top of the wingnuts oil. Right, ppj?

    Get back under your bridge.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 04:18:07 PM EST
    You remind me of the old saying:

    If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas...

    Not passing emergency supplemental funding is simply NOT FUNDING the occupation. That is all it is.

    Huh? What are all of those troops doing????

    Parsing is fine in debates, but the american people will see through that instantly.

    Parent

    If you are dumb enough to believe that the (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 05:44:29 PM EST
    American people are as dumb as you think they are, ppj, you haven't been paying much attention.

    Or are you just pretending again?

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 07:46:19 PM EST
    Nope... you see you reveal the truth when you write:

    ...the only way the funding can be said to be "for the troops" is if the intention is to keep them in Iraq for many years.

    The supplemental funding is for a defined period, not many years. That time period includes the time they are in Iraq.....

    That means when you want to withhold it, you are taking funding away from the troops.

    And you think the American public can't figure that out??

    Ha

    Parent

    You still claiming oil???? (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 04:28:57 PM EST
    That's funny edger. I wish you were right because:

    What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port ? probably Basra ? and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

    There would have been no overland campaign ? what for? ? and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

    That?s what a war for oil would look like. It?s entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality.

    ejectejecteject

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    maybe you're not pretending. Just a little panicked.

    Republicans Panicking Because the Greatest Heist the World Has Ever Seen is Failing

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 07:41:27 PM EST
    I like to give you that little piece everynow then because I know you have no idea when it comes to our military.

    And I like to put a little reality into your conspiracy driven world.

    Parent

    Reality into your conspiracy driven world? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 07:50:24 PM EST
    You've finally figured out Bush, huh?

    A little late. If the devil made you do it there ain't no absolution, bud.

    Parent

    I think you need to (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:39:51 PM EST
    watch this. It's reality.... unfortunately.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    You are the one claiming that this is all just a conspiracy about oil. 9/11 was just an excuse, etc., etc.

    Outside of the military overview I have previously given you, if this was a conspiracy for oil, it would have been duck soup for Bush to declare that Saddam had came clean and that we had cut a deal with him for 100% of Iraq's oil for X number of years at Y price, and that this would stabilize the world's oil markets and allow us to concentrate on Iran, Afghanistan, etc... while the reformed Saddam was going to improve the democratic, etc., etc.

    But you can't accept that Bush invaded, and the Demos approved, because everyone thought he had WMD's and we couldn't afford a mad man with nukes.

    BTW - I bet you have read/posted Alex Jones within the past 12 months.

    Parent

    Fact (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:08:21 AM EST
    ....9/11 was just an excuse....
    This is not an opinion, at this point, it is a fact.

    There was no defensive reason to attack and occupy Iraq. It is a war of convienence, a luxury war meant to displace the Iraqi people so that we can have military control the middle east and corporate America can fatten up on oil related profits.

    9/11 was just an excuse. A quote from PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses September 2000:


    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

    pdf link

    Parent

    The film, ppj (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:56:54 AM EST
    is about the exhaustion and disillusionment of the troops in Iraq. It's no surprise you want to divert to something else and avoid facing that since it obviously doesn't matter to you how many of them are maimed mentally and physically or killed for your fantasies.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    And do you think that the things you do have no impact on this??

    Of course it does. I find it astonishing that you don't understand this.

    Home front morale is of infinite importance when fighting a war.

    Worse, it causes the military to develop a "them and us" attitude. In the long term that can be very hurtful to a democracy.

    Parent

    Trying to blame the debacle you guys (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:19:56 AM EST
    have created on the people who opposed it since before the invasion is not only self-delusion, ppj.

    No one is buying it except the self-deluded.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    No one can claim that a continual negative drum beat  and claims by the Demo/Left's leader that the war is "lost" does not:

    1. Hurt the moral of our troops.

    2. Improve the moral of our enemies.

    You may seek to find a justification that overcomes the above facts, but the facts themselves are solid and indisputable.

    One I have heard is that hurting the troops now, you are helping the ones who will not have to come. Of course this assumes that if we withdraw, which is a de facto loss, the terrorists will not simply expand and attack us later when they are stronger and have better weapons. Withdrawal also ignores the explicity statement of OBL on 3/97 to Peter Arnett, then of CNN.


    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    Link

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    If you lived in a fascist country that would be the line. Even the generals disagree with your anti-american position.

    Parent
    Well, ppj (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:12:19 PM EST
    It's your case to make. Substantiate it. Or go home.

    Your opinions are just that. Opinions. Not fact. Repeating them endlessly like a wind up doll doesn't change that.

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:44:07 PM EST
    My opinions in this case are backed up by OBL's own words, and his actions over the past 10 years.

    But don't let facts get in the way.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    There was no defensive reason to attack and occupy Iraq

    It was a preemptive strike based on the belief that Saddam had WMD's, and the was trying to get back into the WMD business.

    The first has not been proved. The second has.

    A secondary reason was to establish a modern liberal democracy in the ME as a beachhead against the various terrorist organizations.

    and the reality is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Sailor on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    A secondary reason was to establish a modern liberal democracy in the ME as a beachhead against the various terrorist organizations.
    the reality is the terrorist organizations now exist in iraq where they didn't before, are retaking afghanistan and have treaties with pakistan.

    all king george has done is make the ME as a beachhead FOR the various terrorist organizations.

    Parent

    Look, Sailor.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    How do expect ppj, or anyone other wingnut, to keep their blinders from falling off, remain in denial, and hide from their own guilt, if you're going to say things like that? ;-)

    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:49:14 PM EST
    You continue to fail to understand "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as explained by Fitzgerald in the 9/11 hearings.

    And of course it would be easier to get rid of the terrorist cells if Iraq was a dictatorship. All you have to do is kill everyone you disagree with.

    Your disagreement with Bush is pure politics based on BDS and has nothing to do with the WOT.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:55:57 PM EST
    Once the US presence is not 'occupying' the Iraqis' time and energy, the Iraqis will eliminate al-Qaeda, who repeatedly calls for the occupation to continue, since it so conveniently provides them with American targets.

    Your disagreement is simple minded denial and is based on the pure politics of your support of Bush's occupation of Iraq. And based on zero concern for the lives of the troops.


    Parent

    Reid on Warner-Lugar | 41 comments (41 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment