These people are the height of un-American flipfloping SOBs.

No, it's Bush that needs to be stopped, and personally I'm all for whatever it takes. Stop your crying about the evil Democrats and take a good hard, honest look at the mess this administration has the US in. An overextended, undersuppied fighting force wallowing around in the middle of a civil war that we enabled in the first place. The few allies we have are abandoning us. This country is sinking under the weight of reckless debt, poor management and the lack of any realistic vision for the future. The people want change. It's time to stop the bleeding now, whatever it takes and get back on track. Your endless regurgitation of BushCo talking points is sounding more hollow and hopeless with every new post.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

~~ President Abraham Lincoln

"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun.... The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion."

~~ Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs

Hey jp, cut it out. You must be taking those guys out of context.

Query: how can a "resolution" authorizing someone to do something be "repealed." He's already done what the resolution authorized. They can argue about War Powers and the authority to remain on a different mission perhaps. They're just flailing around trying to find a way to grow some balls.

"I've had enough of 'non-binding,'" says Kerry. Watch how slowly he acts to actually do something. What a fraud.

jp, you dumb-ass:

"But Lincoln never said that. The conservative author who touched off the misquotation frenzy, J. Michael Waller, concedes that the words are his, not Lincoln's. Waller says he never meant to put quote marks around them, and blames an editor [at the magazine Insight] for the mistake and the failure to correct it. We also note other serious historical errors in the Waller article containing the bogus quote."

jp,

FYI, the Lincoln quote is totally bogus. He never said that. It's just more desperate projection by the right tyring to gain a little traction in their rapidly accelerated slide away from relevance.

groucho:

No, it's Bush that needs to be stopped, and personally I'm all for whatever it takes.

Bolded above, is the primary malfunction of the argument.

"Stopping Bush at all costs". Forget how much you damage anyone or anything doing it, just fulfill your personal vendetta.

An overextended, undersuppied fighting force wallowing around in the middle of a civil war that we enabled in the first place.

Overextended and undersupplied? Not unless Congress has it's way.

The few allies we have are abandoning us.

There's a difference in doing what's popular and what's right.

This country is sinking under the weight of reckless debt, poor management and the lack of any realistic vision for the future.

*chanelling Kyle* Really!!??

The people want change. It's time to stop the bleeding now, whatever it takes and get back on track.

I thought we were starting the bleeding, beginning with cutting the funds and support from our military. You may want to rethink hamstringing our armed force's ability to fight and to deploy...we may need it in the future.

The ends do not always justify the means.

Of course we should all take the words of a lefty. Even if Lincoln did not say it, it does not mean it isn't true. Democrats hate the military so much they are coming unhinged. ww

Where did the Senate get this crazy idea?

Like it or not, it is probably the best way to go about bringing the troops home. If they authorized it, they should be able to revoke it.

That said, I highly doubt this would come about. It would take a huge amount of courage and fortitude to pass this legislation, especially with a veto proof margin.

If passed, congress would like they are unilaterally surrendering (they would be), if defeated (likely) their anti-war stance would be refuted and they would have backed themselves into the corner.

The Lincoln (not quite a) quote may be fake, but it's accurate. Lincoln probably felt that way and could have said it. So why anyone would object to us using it to discredit congressmen?

They would be unconstitutionally usurping the president's role as Commander in Chief by giving orders to the military themselves.

So is it your contention Kim that the Executive Branch has the right to continue our involvement in Iraq against the will of a majority of the American people and Congress in perpetuity? If it takes another two decades to complete nation building in Iraq do you think Presidents can do that without any authorization from Congress at all?

Of course, that's not what our founding fathers intended. They gave Congress the right to declare war because they wanted to make it difficult, not easy, for the nation to go to war. Given that the current mission doesn't resemble the original mission at all why shouldn't the President make his case to the American people and to Congress for a new authorization to continue our nation building initiative in the midst of Iraq's civil war? Why is Bush afraid to have such a debate? Why is he afraid to make his case on Iraq? Is this truly a representative democracy or a one-man dictatorship? At what point do we recognize that the American people should have the right to enforce our will over a government that is not respecting our wishes?

lincoln improsined political opponents during war time, its not too far a stretch to say he would atleast agree with that quote. note the Grant quote is not in question.

Would one of you "cut and run" folks please address what happens to Iraq when we retreat? It seems that our new CIC Murtha and has friends haven't the intestinal fortitude to venture a guess.

I wonder if the Dems would like a re-do on their 1998 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ policy, which helped lead to Saddam's overthrow.

"Neither the House nor the Senate has any business micromanaging this war." BS, the government is by the people and for the people. As Lincoln said (these are actual quotes, and not made-up ones)

"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."

Bush should have learned this one:

"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

if we "cut and run", the al-sadr(Iran backed) shia militias will try to committ massive Genocide against the Sunni's which would in effect wipe out the Al-Qaeda bases in Iraq except it would never happen because it would draw Saudi Arabia in to protect the Sunni's and start a widespread war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Which would be horrible on many fronts.

also, the last thing we need is that scenario to happen because then the Saudi's would be openly allied with Al-Qaeda.

Lincoln didn't have "public sentiment" on his side, he was one of the most popular presidents while in office ever, which led to his assassination.

Yeeeee-haaaa! This Kim broad is purty amart too! Is she as hot as Lorie? Does she have any pitchers made so as we can see her? These dmoncrats are traitors. They're trying to sell us out to the evil doers just like they did in Vietnam. Remember how we pulled out of there early, and then the Viet Cong were all storming the beaches of New Jersey and killing moms and eating all our apple pie! And then Jimmy Carter and Ho Chi Minh were eating american babies. we can't let that happen again. And yeah maybe we didn't find any WMD's. that don't mean they never had them. Just like because Lincoln never said that quote doesn't mean he wouldn't have said it if that actor hadn't shot him after the War of Northern Aggression!

edit above, one of the most UN-POPULAR presidents ever while in office.

While I disagree with this action, I do believe the democrats are actually doing the right thing here, if they actually do it, as opposed to all the time they've already wasted on the non-binding, pro-terrorist resolution they recently passed in the house.

And I'm not worried if they actually do it, anyway. The President will just veto it and there aren't enough terrorist supporting leftists in the congress to overturn a veto.

If we leave Iraq the Saudi's have promised to fund AQ and other groups to protect the Sunni.

The fanatics in Iran will exert the most influence as the strongest regional power. The Kurds split off part of Turkey and form into an army.

Iraq becomes a terrorist nation-state no matter who wins, placing the terrorists in control of the second largest oil reserves in the world. Oil prices soar, the US economy goes into decline.

The region becomes unstable, Afghanistan is also abandoned, caught in the crossfire between extremists.

Iran, flush with victory, never again responds to the IAEA or the UN and the bomb is developed for certain, with nothing now to stop it.

"They were for the war, before they were against it"(tm)

Policy merits aside, there'd be nothing unconstitutional about this. Congress can give authority to war, and can revoke the same. It's also clearly within their power to determine the scope of the war.

How dare you robert the original? Talking about reality and the actual real consequences of what the democrats want to do!

Didn't you hear what Pelosi said about doing that?
"Pelosi said. 'It has no place in our debate.'"

They only want to discuss their intentions (world peace I guess) not the actualy consquences of their actions, for crying out loud!

its not unconstitutional, its just dumb and suicidal. and confirms al-qaeda's view that we are weak.

"Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu."
-Osama bin Laden, Declaration of War, (Fatwa) August, 1996

The Lincoln (not quite a) quote may be fake, but it's accurate.

Ah, the modern GOP. Truly a paradigm of integity-ishness.

Would one of you "cut and run" folks please address what happens to Iraq when we retreat?

Troops would be maintained in the area to prevent the sky from falling. Well, any more than it has.

its not unconstitutional, its just dumb and suicidal. and confirms al-qaeda's view that we are weak.

I'd prefer our foreign policy not be run by al-Qaeda.

The Constitution grants congress the power to declare war. Period. Nothing about waging, managing or conducting war, and absolutely nothing about undeclared war or other armed hostilities. The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the military forces, not limited to "in time of war". Since there is no declared war, congress' power to declare war has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Whether the War Powers Act, or any other congressional enactment, is itself constitutional as applied to limit the authority of the commander in chief in time of armed hostilities, undertaken with the approval, whether actually necessary or not, of congress, is an interesting and very open question. Given that the President is constitutionally the commander-in-chief, and the congress is constitutionally given no role in the conduct of military operations, declared or otherwise, it would seem pretty obvious that the Founding Fathers did not intend for congress to be able to legislate HOW military operations would be conducted. In fact, nothing in the Constitution can be reasonbly construed to bring about that conclusion.

"I'd prefer our foreign policy not be run by al-Qaeda."

Then why do you support the party who's doing what Al Qaeda wants?

Why was it again that Bin Ladin endorsed Kerry for President back in '04?

They would be unconstitutionally usurping the president's role as Commander in Chief by giving orders to the military themselves.
Kim Priestap

How so? They would be saying that the authority that Congress gave the president to invade has been revoked because the stated objectives of the mission have been fulfilled, i.e. dismantle WMDs and depose Saddam (we've also set up a gov't, not necessarily a functioning one though). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the authorization says we must leave Iraq as a stable, functioning, vibrant democracy, which is what the current goal is. Congress would not be telling the troops where to be stationed or what checkpoints to monitor or what neighborhood to sweep. Of course, if this did pass, Bush could either ask for a new authorization to keep troops their to police a civil war or not listen to it and keep the troops there indefinitely, at which point Congress would start impeachment proceedings.

Now, I don't agree with this approach, but I don't think it's unconstitutional.

Hey jp, cut it out. You must be taking those guys out of context.
wavemaker

I seems as though you're saying this sarcastically, but you don't following up with the /sarc tag, so I'm not 100% sure. But he is taking they're quotes out of context. They (well Lincoln's isn't even a real quote, but if it were) were talking about America's civil war, not another country's civil war that we're in the middle of. If that's not out of context, I don't know what is.

Of course we should all take the words of a lefty. Even if Lincoln did not say it, it does not mean it isn't true. Democrats hate the military so much they are coming unhinged.
WildWillie

The Lincoln (not quite a) quote may be fake, but it's accurate. Lincoln probably felt that way and could have said it. So why anyone would object to us using it to discredit congressmen?
nell

lincoln improsined political opponents during war time, its not too far a stretch to say he would atleast agree with that quote.
jp

So now fake but accurate is OK with the right, at least when it comes to advocating for the execution of your countrymen? Good to know we've cleared that up.

"It's going to be tough," Ryan said. "Within three months we'll know whether momentum is headed in the right direction; and we'll know within six months whether the results will begin to materialize or not.

"In my mind, if by the end of the summer, it's clear that this isn't working, we're going to have to go to Plan B and start withdrawing troops." Rep Ryan R-WI

Time-table? Pull out! Why do the Republicans hate the troops and appease the terrorists?

Stupid. Useless. Posturing.

The Dhimmicrats don't have the votes to overcome the inevitable filibuster. They probably don't have the votes to pass it. And they certainly can't overcome a veto.

If they were serious, House Dhimmicrats would pull the funding.

I thought all of us big and brave 'mericans didn't give a pile of Texas brush what al-qaeda thinks, right? If I had to guess what they think about us I'd have to say foolish. And maybe a little grateful for providing them with lots of recruitment motivation and a situation the=at allows them to just pick away at us, refining their tactics.

And Heralder, the troops have been under equipped from the get-go. I blame everyone responsible, not just the bumbling fools in c