Democrats Move to Limit Bush's War Authority »
Posted By TimALoftis 1 year, 7 months ago in NewsKey lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.
Read Full Story at apnews.myway.com »
Submitted By:
TimALoftis
Welcome To Propeller !
If you like 'Social News' and making friends and conversation with both a mature and informed community - this site is for you ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 620
-
100%
Amazing11 year, 7 months ago
I hope the Democrats will be successful in limiting the war authority of this president. He has taken far too many liberties with his "signing statements" which have pretty much negated Congressional input.
In addition, limiting the mission in preparation for withdrawal is the right step to my way of thinking. It was a wrong headed invasion and occupation from the git-go. It was done poorly and the country is now in the midst of civil war.
We need more diplomacy and fewer guns.
Reply-
100%
Fantagor1 year, 7 months ago
The ISG concluded that a redirection of strategy was in order, including diplomacy and the reassignment of troops to support roles. Bush's response? Add more troops to the combat lines, call it a "surge", and repudiate diplomatic solutions.
"Stay the course", by any other name, still smells just as bad.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago
With most of the Jihadist needing success in Iraq it may be a very dangerous move on the part of the Democrat(ic)s to surrender there. Giving them the feeling that the ran the US out will embolden and help spread there ideology. From the report post below
* The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
Which sounds to me like we need to be successful at helping the New Iraqi government stand up. Limiting the military options will likely prolong the situation rather than shorten it. If we don't finish now we will be back later.
Reply
-
-
0%
Blackace1 year, 7 months ago
It's about time; they did something about this idiot. I am tired of people thinking he represents all American. If he is not the worse president ever then we must have elected foghorn leghorn at some point...I am exhausted at the dept of stupidity in this bush government. It's like someone let the mentally challenge into the mansion. Karl Rove is nothing more than a life long nerd who has finally gotten the power to exact revenge on the so call cool people.
He looks like the type.
Reply -
100%
invest071 year, 7 months ago
I'm glad the modern Democrat Party has finally gotten up the nerve to attempt something that actually has teeth. This will put everyone on record with a yay or nay vote for the second time. (The Dems seem to have forgotten the first vote). This vote will tell us whether or each Dem is really serious about leaving Iraq or if they were only blustering.
If the Dems are successful, any deaths that our soldiers suffer after the vote will be on their hands.
Reply-
0%
injest1 year, 7 months ago
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week, and he is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism
Translation: He does not believe he can get support on this measer based on the merit of the measure its self, so he will tack it on to some other measure. Can you say GUTLESS?
Officials who described the strategy spoke only on condition of anonymity, noting that rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the details.
Translation: This measure is so gutless, pathetic and bad that he does not want ANY Senators to read it before voting on it.
Have we seen this play before?
Reply -
100%
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
Sorry invest, but it was the bushies who lied us into this war, any deaths of soldiers, civilians now and in the future in retaliation for the invasion of Iraq are on their hands and their hands alone.
But I would be surprised if the cons didn`t try to blame everyone and anyone but the people who made this mess, they always do.
Reply
-
-
100%
PatrioticAmerican1 year, 7 months ago
Actually i think you have it wrong Amazing, what we need is more Patriotic Democrats and more pro-american democrats, instead of the ones we have now and those are the ones that are for every country EXCEPT America. and yes i mean those Dems that are in office right now and those running right now
Reply-
0%
jaern1 year, 7 months ago
Unpatriotic and un-American democrats that are in office right now? I suppose if you agree with Cheney and his view that "you are either with us or against us" you may think they are unpatriotic and un-American, but for the vast majority of Americans we see this as nothing more than political rhetoric and ******.
Reply -
0%
ConquerorWyrm1 year, 7 months ago
oops, sorry, didn't want to give you a positive there but finger slipped...and no, wasn't going to give you a neg either.
What I did want to do is respond to you by asking you what you considered to be 'patriotic' and whether or not you allowed for others interpetations of what 'patriotic' is...
I also want you to think that through if you could while holding in the back of your mind the old adage...
"patriotism is the scoundrel's last refuge"
thanks
Reply
-
-
0%
somecommonsense1 year, 7 months ago
I hate to say it but the democrats have become a spineless party , that has lost it's backbone, I don't see them doing anything cause they are too scared to seem unpatriotic, the repubs really created the environment after 9-11 that wont allow dissent, even if you have the right ideas, the climate, even now, is not ripe for change, but it could be if people believed their leaders had conviction and they felt that when the said something they meant it...we need politicians with conviction, not felony convictions...
Reply -
20%
terrestrial1 year, 7 months ago
It seems odd that Bush2 would change laws his own party esentially wrote. WHAT did he decide to change before he signed those laws? Keep in mind that both the house and the senate agreed, and Both were controlled by republicans. What interests would compell Bush to change law primarily shaped by lobbyists?
Changing subjects..
would you consider troops in afghanistan a war?
if so..
would you want troops out of afghanistan?
the last thing i can say is; restricitng the presidents power? Why was it allowed to concentrate? Cheney did everything to reverse the resistance to an imperial president. Remember he was from the Nixon era, when the govt. bombarded countries that weren't hostile.
rebuttal : "Clinton missiled Iraq."
First, Clinton didn't create a protracted affair like the current war(invasion)of iraq.
Second, the incursion Bush2's father travailed.
Lesson learned : NEVER go wobbly.)
finally, I don't agree with more than half of the things B.Clinton has done.
Reply -
0%
Chunjinhao1 year, 7 months ago
Isn't Bush's war policy in Iraq, similar to "Catch 21" or maybe to "Catch 22"...?
Reply
-
-
100%
jay611 year, 7 months ago
Republicans don't give a Rats AZZ about anything but self serving issues. Bush & Friends are making too much money off contracts that are their own interests to even give any thought as to what Dems think ,,or anyone for that matter.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
I get a picture of an enormous GW Bush holding a giant bucket full of American GIs in one arm and cranking a meat grinder called Iraq with the other. He's dumping these poor young people into the meat grinder while he constantly repeats the mantra, "Support the troops."
Reply
-
