Bingo! Stop-war precedent found: US Senate 6/24/1970.

[DemoTex]

Late finding in my late night readings! On 6/24/70 the US Senate voted to repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964. The ability to win in Viet Nam had been disproved at Ap Bai (Hamburger Hill). The moral authority for the Vietnam War had been given up at My Lai-4.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. And moral authority for the Iraq war was given up at Abu Grahib,

Haditha, Fallujah, and Gitmo.

Everything we accused Saddam of doing, we've done.

[chknltl]

3. Yep!

Indiscriminate use of WMD-check*

Destabilization of the Middle East-check

Threatening the neighboring sovereign countries around Iraq-check

Stealing the resources rightfully belonging to the citizens of Iraq-check

Putting countless thousands of Iraqi citizens behind bars-check

Invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses-check

Incurring the ire and disgust of much of the free world-check

Torturing prisoners in direct violation of international treaties like the Geneva Accords-check


Did I leave anything out? Ok, I am busted- so under saddam there were sensationally fewer IEDs goin off in the market places and a whole lot less terrorists kicking around and I think electric, water and sewers worked a bit better and oh yeah there are those million or so EXTRA refugees....but we did give the Iraqi people "Democracy"!!!...I am sure they are just thrilled about this! If it weren't for that "librul" media we would indeed hear just how thrilled they are!...As soon as they get done with that civil war that is.

*Do a search on the topic Depleted Uranium here in the DU

[bear425]

4. I think this should be its own post. Good compilation. n/t

[Sydnie]

9. ....

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Even without depleted uranium, we used proscribed weapons in

using white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon, certainly in Fallujah, likely elsewhere. That is in violation of international law, no less than using poison gas.

[sandnsea]

2. Dec 30 '72

Nixon halts bombing of North Vietnam and announces peace talks.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. 1970? Yet US troops were there until 1973

So if Congress repealed the Iraq War Resolution now, troops would come home in 2010?

[chknltl]

6. That's because Nixon was in charge, for that to happen today...

cheney would have to bite Nixon on the neck, then we would have to swap out bush for Nixon...it'd be terribly complicated... I am pretty sure Lou Dobbs would get suspicious and claim we were sneaking in an undocumented guestworker... sorry, I just don't see it happening.
















(as you can plainly see: resistance, was indeed, futile) :hide:

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. My point is that rescinding the IRW would not bring the troops home immediately

[DemoTex]

12. Another reason to rescind IWR immediately: Iran.

Congress needs to send an unequivocal message to Bu$h/Cheney. Bu$h seems to think that the IWR gives him carte blanche to wage war anywhere in the region.

And yes, it took a while after the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to get all of the troops home. But without a repeal of the IWR we may never pull out of Iraq-nam. Permanent occupation of Iraq is, indeed, the Bu$hco/PNAC plan.

[chknltl]

13. Sorry, could not resist the snark

and for what it is worth, I agree with your point. Should something similar happen today, the republicans would call it further political posturing by the Dems and claim we were undermining the troops. It would fade directly after that and not likely get our troops home before 2010 as you pointed out... I was just trying to be funny, looking for my first DUZY, not disagree with ya.
You must admit, cheney biting Nixon on the neck in order to reanimate him....oh never mind...some days you win some and other days it is better to stay in bed.

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. That's what Byrd and Clinton are trying to get introduced

Not sure if Reid's let it come up yet, though. They have proposed "de-authorizing" the IWR.

[malaise]

10. Great post K & R n/t

[Polemicist]

14. Couldn't Bush just veto that repeal?

And stop any repeal of the AUMF in Iraq?

We should have learned a valuable lesson when Congress first passed the AUMF. The Democratic minority in the Senate could have stood firm together on benchmarks, time lines, and a sunset provision ended the AUMF automatically in one, two, or three years. Instead, a blank check was crafted by Republicans for Bush and agreed to by Democrats, who were afraid of being called names by the extremist Republican warmongers.

Once that AUMF passed, it can't be altered or repealed, unless the President agrees, as he can veto any bill that would repeal it. So we now have to have a 2/3s majority to override a veto, when we could have prevented this scenario by simply threatening to filibuster the original bill unless it included protections against a President being able to defy the nation and keep us in a failed war.

And, yes, we can cut off funding by not sending any funding bill to Bush. That is the only way we can now stop this war, until after the 2008 elections. Bush can't veto a decision by Congress not to send him a Iraq War funding bill.