Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War


www.nytimes.com

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.

Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.

The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve.

Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.cnn.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Will Congress Use Power of the Purse to Stop Troop Surge?




posted on May, 5 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I don't know how to take this news; on one hand I think the vote to repeal the Presidents authority to invade Iraq is a good thing, although maybe a little too late in coming. On the other hand, I resent the fact that this is all being done more for political gain and advantage than because it's the right thing to do.

I also wonder if Clinton and Byrd really expect to accomplish anything meaningful here, or are they going in knowing they don't have much of a chance at succeeding, just to piss off Bush? Stay tuned, this could get ugly.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/5/2007 by Mr. Fantasy]



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
It's all talk and political posturing and will very likely come to nothing.

Don't forget nearly all the Dems were 100% behind their Republican counterparts in cheering on the war in the first place. Any attempt to investigate the reasons for the war would also point the finger of guilt at them too for helping to authorize and support it.

The war is now a political tool, nothing more and a simple vote grabbing measure calling for it's end and a US withdrawal.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
It's all talk and political posturing and will very likely come to nothing.


Thanks for your comments, Britguy; I agree with you, up to a point. I agree that the vote itself if it comes will probably fail but disagree as to the long term effects this will have on the political scene and presidential election. Clinton is a very savvy political animal and she has some idea that this ploy will play well in Peoria, and she is probably right. The candidate that makes the most noise over the war will get the most number of votes; I think that may be her real goal here.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I agree that the Iraq War is being used as a political tool for ‘hopefuls’ and political opportunist. This will be just another waste of congress’ time for the gain of a few.


Originally posted by Britguy
Don't forget nearly all the Dems were 100% behind their Republican counterparts in cheering on the war in the first place.


I am no supporter of any one particular party; however to clarify: The House had 126 Democrats and 6 republicans voting against the resolution in 2002. (House vote: 296-133)

In the Senate 29 Democrats were for the resolution and 21 were against. (Senate vote: 77-23); Sen. Robert Byrd wanted to filibuster against the bill and was very active in attempting to defeat the bill from day one.

And Hillary…well we all know what she is after.


mg



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
In the Senate 29 Democrats were for the resolution and 21 were against. (Senate vote: 77-23); Sen. Robert Byrd wanted to filibuster against the bill and was very active in attempting to defeat the bill from day one.


Well, I'm not too sure how much weight I would want to place on that fact; Byrd would filibuster a pay raise for himself, if it was proposed by the White House. He is known for that in the Senate; still it does play somewhat in his favor here, although he'll never have to worry about being re-elected :lol


And Hillary…well we all know what she is after.


Oh yes, we sure do, and she may well get it too

:



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr. Fantasy
Byrd would filibuster a pay raise for himself, if it was proposed by the White House.


My apologies, I wasn’t clear…at the time the Iraq War resolution was up for vote in 2002 he threatened filibuster just prior to the Senate vote. He was shut down 75-25.

I agree he with your comment, however he was very, very vocal against the resolution (but few were listening)...hindsight being 20/20 and all that:


I do not want history to remember my country as being on the side of evil.
--[snip]—
I want more time. I want more evidence. I want to know that I am right, that our Nation is right, and not just powerful…
--[snip]—
Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution”
Sen. Robert Byrd, Speech b/f resolution


etc. etc. etc.


mg



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I rememeber reading Sen. Byrd's speech, it was quite moving and he has been against the war ever since the word was first uttered.
I don't know if it would be constitutional to vote on it? Aren't war powers, the ability to declare war given to Congress only? I don't know, does anyone else know for sure?
At any rate, Hillary, IMHO, will do anything to get votes. That's one of the big reasons I don't like her. But, it IS a smart political ploy. I live in what was once a very red section of NE Tennessee in a small town that is very patriotic and loyal. But even here, they're getting tired of the war and realizing that we were all scammed and lied to, in order for this war to happen.
She has up until very recently, been for the war.
It's confusing.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by Mr. Fantasy
Byrd would filibuster a pay raise for himself, if it was proposed by the White House.


My apologies, I wasn’t clear…at the time the Iraq War resolution was up for vote in 2002 he threatened filibuster just prior to the Senate vote. He was shut down 75-25.

I agree he with your comment, however he was very, very vocal against the resolution (but few were listening)...hindsight being 20/20 and all that:


I do not want history to remember my country as being on the side of evil.
--[snip]—
I want more time. I want more evidence. I want to know that I am right, that our Nation is right, and not just powerful…
--[snip]—
Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution”
Sen. Robert Byrd, Speech b/f resolution


etc. etc. etc.


mg


I apologize if I came across as flippant in my remarks about Senator Byrd; I guess I could have been a little more diplomatic in my comments. I just find the man to be a little hard to take, sometimes, and often a roadblock to progress, IMO. Sorry if I misunderstood where you were coming from missing_gear



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I don't think congress can "take back" the war vote..

She didn't bother mentioning she voted for it.

Of course.. there might be stipulations in the law that could go before the Supreme Court, because it is a fact that Bush went to war based on lies or heavy misinformation.. perhaps it could "void" the vote in some way, or at least bring about a new vote.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady

I don't know if it would be constitutional to vote on it? Aren't war powers, the ability to declare war given to Congress only? I don't know, does anyone else know for sure?


Well, it's my understanding that what they are talking about doing is repealing their authorization to go to war in 2002; since only congress can actually declare war and they were the ones to initially give Bush the go-ahead to invade Iraq. I don't think they are looking to actually repeal the war powers act itself. But I am not an expert on the Constitution and it's amendments.



At any rate, Hillary, IMHO, will do anything to get votes. That's one of the big reasons I don't like her. But, it IS a smart political ploy. I live in what was once a very red section of NE Tennessee in a small town that is very patriotic and loyal. But even here, they're getting tired of the war and realizing that we were all scammed and lied to, in order for this war to happen.
She has up until very recently, been for the war.
It's confusing.


Yeah, that is confusing. Until recently she had voiced some disagreement with how the war was going, but still had not called for troop withdrawls; I guess she is listening to her political advisors and feels this is the best way to get the support of the majority of Americans who want this whole thing to end.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Of course they can repeal it... it was done over Vietnam. After the so-called and now known to be bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident the Congress authorized he president, then Johnson to persue the fight with North Vietnam and it wasn't until congress revoked that authorization under Nixxon were serious negotions begun to end the fighting, or at leaast Americas involvement in it.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I could care less if it's politically based or not, as long as it's done.

As for the Constitutionality of it, well I just (re)read the Constitution, and
it does'nt say they can't, in fact it does'nt say who can and cannot end a
war. It does say only Congress can authorize one, but that's about it.



EDIT:
Fixed can''t to can't.

[edit on 5/5/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
True Iori..

Perhaps if Congress is the one who can authorize it, they can then legally end what they started?



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Of course they can repeal it... it was done over Vietnam. After the so-called and now known to be bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident the Congress authorized he president, then Johnson to persue the fight with North Vietnam and it wasn't until congress revoked that authorization under Nixxon were serious negotions begun to end the fighting, or at leaast Americas involvement in it.


Of course they can repeal it, I never said otherwise; what I said was " I don't think they are looking to actually repeal the war powers act itself". I also said the Senate's probable intention was "repealing their authorization to go to war in 2002". I don't see haw that disagrees with your point in your answering post, unless I missed something, did I? I was referring to the fact that they were not going to repeal the law (War Powers Act), itself, but only thier authorization under the law. Sorry, If I didn't make that clear.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I said I'd never vote for Hillary, but if she gets this done, she just might change my mind.

Yes, it's a great political move, but if it's obviously what the people want and she works to get it done, I don't see a problem with that. She's not up there to do what SHE wants. She works for us (right now, the people of NY), remember? Even if she personally would like to see the war continue, if the people want it to end, she's got a good reason to make it happen.

And if Congress made a declaration that WE ARE NOT AT WAR and Bush didn't withdraw the troops, he'd clearly be breaking the law.

Go Hillary!



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
This is toooooooooooo late.
Now, it's just an opportunistic political staging event for the cameras.

Someone should tell Hillary that you can't put the genie back in the bottle after it gets out. There is no way to reverse this war. It's done. We are there. We have to move on from here with what we have. There is no way to go back in time. Doing this won't accomplish that.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
This is like saying you're going to unring a bell.

It makes no sense and would be unconstitutional. Congress can authorize war, and they can stop funding a war, but they can't deauthorize a war. Even if this passed, it would be vetoed anyway.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Now, it's just an opportunistic political staging event for the cameras.


Or for the votes. You probably are right. That doesn't matter to me. If she can get it done, I support it.



Someone should tell Hillary that you can't put the genie back in the bottle after it gets out.


No, but you can introduce legislation that requires the genie to reauthorize his freedom from the bottle or face consequences.




Sens. Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., announced they would introduce legislation that would require the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007.
...
The two senators have not decided how they will seek to force a vote on the measure - whether through an amendment, a stand-alone bill, or a spending bill.
Source



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It makes no sense and would be unconstitutional. Congress can authorize war, and they can stop funding a war, but they can't deauthorize a war. Even if this passed, it would be vetoed anyway.


It would'nt be, as the Constiution does not say they can not do so.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join