Democrats Seek To Repeal 2002 War Authorization

[Psychoblues]

Excepting the genuine WAR ON TERROR, this is about the WAR that never should have been.



By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 23, 2007


Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.
House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022201743.html

Give peace a chance.

[5stringJeff]

It will never happen, for two reasons:

1. the GOP has a filibuster-proof minority in the Senate.

2. The Dems need the war as a political issue to win in 2008.

[avatar4321]

Not to mention it's not constitutional.

[Psychoblues]

Although I agreed with the vote to give the prez authority to go to war on Terror, I never thought he would actually invade Iraq based on the evidence that I knew about at the time. Many politicians, Democratic and Republican alike, also now view my premise at the time correct.

Not to mention it's not constitutional.

As far as constitutionality is concerned, when has bush ever been concerned with it? Let the legislators play their games and then let the Supreme Court work it out. Now, that is the shrub doctrine if there actually is one.

[CSM]

Although I agreed with the vote to give the prez authority to go to war on Terror, I never thought he would actually invade Iraq based on the evidence that I knew about at the time. Many politicians, Democratic and Republican alike, also now view my premise at the time correct.



As far as constitutionality is concerned, when has bush ever been concerned with it? Let the legislators play their games and then let the Supreme Court work it out. Now, that is the shrub doctrine if there actually is one.

You had "evidence" ????

I don't know wha tdrugs you take, but you need a coupke more doses...or a few less.

[Gunny]

Although I agreed with the vote to give the prez authority to go to war on Terror, I never thought he would actually invade Iraq based on the evidence that I knew about at the time. Many politicians, Democratic and Republican alike, also now view my premise at the time correct.

You're full of shit.


As far as constitutionality is concerned, when has bush ever been concerned with it? Let the legislators play their games and then let the Supreme Court work it out. Now, that is the shrub doctrine if there actually is one.

Because YOUR sorry-ass, treasonous legislators are trying their level best to ensure a defeat in Iraq. F-ing losers.

[avatar4321]

Although I agreed with the vote to give the prez authority to go to war on Terror, I never thought he would actually invade Iraq based on the evidence that I knew about at the time. Many politicians, Democratic and Republican alike, also now view my premise at the time correct.



As far as constitutionality is concerned, when has bush ever been concerned with it? Let the legislators play their games and then let the Supreme Court work it out. Now, that is the shrub doctrine if there actually is one.

Considering he is the only one willing to do anything to protect it lately, I think he is concerned with it alot.

However, even if the President acted unconstitutional that wouldnt excuse the legislature from their unconstitutional acts. They too swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Their disdain for the Constitution should act as a black mark against any of their credibility in the future, as should your support of them playing games with the constitution.

[Psychoblues]

The legislature is acting constitutionally at this time. Their votes in 2002 reflect their unwillingness to do so at that time.

Considering he is the only one willing to do anything to protect it lately, I think he is concerned with it alot.

However, even if the President acted unconstitutional that wouldnt excuse the legislature from their unconstitutional acts. They too swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Their disdain for the Constitution should act as a black mark against any of their credibility in the future, as should your support of them playing games with the constitution.

gwb doesn't give a rat's ass about the constitution or the United States Of America. His attitude is only a reflection of the the most prominent American Republicans and is just as detrimental to the American way of life as we know it and ignores the more righteous attitudes of those that promote diplomacy and peace.

[tim_duncan2000]

When they want to restrict the US to just fight al Qaeda, how do you know if the person trying to kill you is al Qaeda? Do you stop and ask, "Excuse me, are you al Qaeda"? And if they say no, let them go their merry way? I don't fucking think so. Typical bullshit from the Dems.

[Bonnie]

It will never happen, for two reasons:

1. the GOP has a filibuster-proof minority in the Senate.

2. The Dem's need the war as a political issue to win in 2008.

On top of which if the Dem's cut funding for the troops they will be exposed for the military hating sobs they really are, and that would never play well for their election chances,no matter how many think the war in Iraq is going badly.






Just for you psychoblues
Not surprisingly, Murtha’s treachery against the military goes even further still. He has been caught on video, gloating that he will logistically starve our troops by denying supplies and reinforcements, ultimately forcing an American retreat from Iraq. Any war strategist knows the importance of cutting an enemy’s supply lines. Murtha is accomplishing nothing less than a rout on behalf of the terrorists.

[darin]

As far as constitutionality is concerned, when has bush ever been concerned with it?

IMO, that's the Logical Fallacy of Red Herring.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Instead of debating the Constitutionality of what the dems seek to do, you change the subject to GWB - hoping to change the argument so we're debating what matters to GWB, not the original topic at hand.

[Psychoblues]

Just looking for an intelligent reply or two. So far I have not seen one.

[manu1959]

Excepting the genuine WAR ON TERROR, this is about the WAR that never should have been.
By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 23, 2007
Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.
House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022201743.html

Give peace a chance.

i am in full support of the dems repealing the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

after they force the withdrawl allowing just a few to stay so that they can say we were there.....they will then appologize and say they did not fully understand what was going on.....appologize for the genocide in iraq.....state that being there did not serve the interest of the US....say that there will be leasons learned....just like rawanda.....

[avatar4321]

Just looking for an intelligent reply or two. So far I have not seen one.

Well when you only consider people who agree with yourself as intelligent, you'll never find one because very few people are that crazy.

[5stringJeff]

Just looking for an intelligent reply or two. So far I have not seen one.

Perhaps you should begin looking at posts besides your own.