The Daily Background
| Following failed Senate debate, Democrats plan “flurry of anti-war legislation”
by Arlen Parsa
McClatchy reports on the heels of the Senate debate on whether to debate Iraq today that Democrats “plan drop efforts to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq and instead will offer a flurry of anti-war legislation.”
McClatchy quotes Senator Chuck Schumer promising “There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment… just like in the days of Vietnam. The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”
One such piece of legislation will come from Senator Clinton.
Clinton said today that troop redeployment should begin within three months in a video message posted on her website. “Now it’s time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war.”
Like I suspect many others, I’m a bit perplexed by what Clinton means when she threatens that Congress will “revoke authorization” for the war. There’s no expiration date on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, and I don’t think Congress can exactly just repeal it, either in terms of constitutionally revoking Presidential authority to conduct war, or in terms of getting enough Republicans to sign on in the Senate at least.
To make things more complicated, Clinton said in the video “If George Bush doesn’t end the war before he leaves office, when I’m president- I will,” which obviously indicates that she doesn’t put much stock in her whole “revoking authorization” or redeployment within 90 days thing.
On the bright side however, Clinton’s proposed legislation also includes language which to me sounds similar to that in Representative Murtha’s legislation to illegalize sending ill-equipped and ill-prepared troops to Iraq, based on a set of standards that would effectively stop the President from sending more troops because the soldiers being sent wouldn’t be equipped and trained according to the standards in the bill.
One apparent hole in Senator Clinton’s legislation is that it does not call for a deadline of any type for when US troops have to be out of Iraq (unlike say Senator Obama’s legislation, which has a firm cap of troops out by March 2008, something the public and military supports). Even if Clinton’s bill were adopted (and it’d have to override a Presidential veto with 2/3rds support– exceptionally unlikely), the Bush Administration could get away with redeploying a few hundred troops every month or two and still seemingly comply.
It seems to me the real issue is: Has (have) Bush’s unaccomplished mission(s) in Iraq exceeded the original Joint House Resolution Authorization of October 2002?
I think it’s fairly clear that the mission in Iraq that US troops are now charged with is very, very different from what Congress thought it was getting into when it approved the authorization of the use of force, yes.