BREAKING: Senate Dems Announce BINDING Resolution To Force Bush To Begin Withdrawal In 120 Days

[kpete]

BREAKING: Senate Dems announce BINDING joint resolution to force Bush to begin withdrawal of combat troops in 120 days

From Senator Reid:

It contains binding language to direct the President to transition the mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and begin their phased redeployment within one-hundred twenty days with a goal of redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008. A limited number of troops would remain for the purposes of force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter-terror options. A full description of the Reid Joint Resolution is attached to this release.

The Democrats are for getting us the hell out. The Republicans are for the slow bleed. Let the voters decide in November 2008 who was right and who was wrong.

Details of Dem resolution:

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=270337&
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/breaking-senate-dems-announce-binding.html

[FourScore]

1. Happy to give the first rec!

:kick:

[Fridays Child]

2. This IS what it's going to take.

[blondeatlast]

38. I love that button! nt

[CrazyOrangeCat]

3. k&r

:kick:

[solara]

4. Pleased to give the 5th k& r

[rox63]

5. WOOOO-DAMN-HOOOO!!!!!

K&R!!!!! :kick:

[tritsofme]

6. Does Reid even have 50 votes for this?

probably not.

At least they're making noise.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Maybe, maybe not

But for those that vote against it...they can explain it to their constituents. I suspect every Republican up for re-election in 2008 is going to have to decide whether to stand with the President or with the clear majority of Americans.

Republicans have been daring Reid and the Democrats to do this...ok, they are doing it. Now, lets see where they stand.

[tritsofme]

15. This measure will die the same fate as the non-binding resolutions

They already stood up against essentially meaningless resolutions, why wouldn't they kill something that had teeth?

[blondeatlast]

30. Beacause every day, the casualties get closer to home to the constituents.

Cousins of friends in high school are becoming the kid you grew up with next door--kinda like Viet Nam.

[Horse with no Name]

56. I disagree

Because I heard many a Republican spin this by saying that it didn't matter because it was non-binding.
Well, this is binding. What's their excuse now?
People will be paying attention to the answer to those questions.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

24. Doesn't it take 60 votes to invoke cloture to even have a vote?

Rules, rules, rules.

[Old and In the Way]

35. It does...but the Republicans were saying that Dems should have a binding resolution to vote on.

Will they now have the guts to stop the talk and walk the walk? I doubt it...they'll avoid the vote as much as they can. They are a Party of Cowards.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

88. Oh, hell yes - you are so right.

They'll find an excuse not to go on the record.

[Polemicist]

75. How about the "Nuclear Option" on all war votes?

Isn't a vote on the war more important than the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice? If the rethugs were willing to go nuclear over the Supreme Court, we should go nuclear over ending this war, and pull their same trick on them.

How did that deal work again? A Parliamentary ruling from the Senate presiding officer, and wham...no more filibuster. And a vote to end the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

We shouldn't let the minority frustrate the efforts of the majority to end this war. We demand an up or down vote on this war.

[MasterDarkNinja]

46. True he might not, but it'll get the republicans on record for voting against it

And it'll show that the democrats tried to something to get us out of Iraq, but couldn't because of the prowar republicans voting down/vetoing their legislation.

[ShaneGR]

60. No, it's largely symbolic

And even it passed, which it cant, it would be vetoed. What this is about is drawing lines in the sand.

[Jackpine Radical]

68. Then let the lines be drawn.

[karynnj]

81. He'll actually need 67

to override a Bush veto. What it does do is continue what Kerry/Feingold did last year. Establish a plan that does lead to getting out of Iraq, while focusing on what can be done on the diplomatic side. Last year, only 13 Senators were willing to vote for a BINDING resolution which SET A DEADLINE. Now, the Democratic party leadership is behind it. That is a major improvement.

[babylonsister]

120 days - that's more like it! Recommend!! nt

[thecrow]

7. Me too!

[Mass]

8. Not to bad. This would have been better with a deadline rather than a goal, but

happy to take that.

However, there is not 60 votes for that.

[WiseButAngrySara]

9. This is Good News Week! k(pete)nr! ....n/t

[myrna minx]

10. Wow. This is just an amazing day. K&R.

[Vincardog]

11. and bout damn time too. Go DemocratIC leadership.

[mzmolly]

12. Wow, what a great day!

:toast:

[Edweird]

14. Good. Even if it gets voted down, it's important for them to

draw the line in the sand.

[MadHound]

16. BREAKING: Bush already getting his veto pen ready, and all of this hoo hah will come to naught

Sorry, but that's the way it is. 'Pugs will either stall this in the Senate with a filibuster, or, as Bush is already threatening, this will be vetoed.

There is only one real way to end this war, cut it off at the knees by cutting of the funding. Sadly though, this option was already taken off the table before Congress took their seats, along with the impeachment option.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Let him veto to his heart's content

[MadHound]

26. He will, without hesitation.

Meanwhile, as the Dems throw up one vetoed bill after another, thousands will continue to die and untold amounts of destruction will continue to happen.

It is past time to stop this war, and the only sure way to do that is to yank the funding. Tie up each and every war funding bill in committee so that it never sees the light of day. Sure, Bush can limp the war along for awhile, but not that long. And once his reserve money is gone, he will have to bring the troops home.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Unless we are willing to take that ultimate

step we need to follow this procedure... and that ultimate step is rather painful and potentially deadly

So are you willing to take that step? If not, we will have to live with procedure.

[MadHound]

74. I've been ready for that step since last November

And frankly I think that the American public is ready for it too. After all, the reason the Dems were put into office is to end the war by any means necessary, ASAP. If we fail to do that, then we can expect to be back in the political wilderness come November '08.

We have the power in Congress, we have the public backing, we have the bully pulpit. Time to use all of that power for what it is intended, ending the war now.

[ms liberty]

21. True - BUT...

This will force the Replicans to put themselves on the record, either by filibustering (no UP or DOWN vote!) or by voting against it. Pin the accountability on that elephant...THAT is the game we should be playing.

[MadHound]

25. Big whoop! So we'll know that the 'Pugs are for a war that most Americans are against

Like we didn't know that already, like the American public didn't know that already(after all, that is why they put the Dems in power last fall:shrug:) So we win a pyrric victory, it still means that thousands upon thousands of people will continue to die as we dick around with one vetoed resolution after another.

But, the Democratic party has the power, right now, to end the war. Stick all those goddamn war funding bill back so far into committee that they'll never see the light of day. Sure, Bush might be able to limp the war along for awhile, but such an action will bring it to an end a hell of a lot quicker than throwing up one vetoed bill after another. It worked with Vietnam, it will work now, if the Dems just have the spine to stand up and say no to funding.

[Polemicist]

76. That Presidential veto would be unconstitutional...

The President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to veto war resolutions passed by Congress. It is entirely the power of Congress to declare war and fund war. Or to un-declare war and de-fund war.

Bush isn't allowed to veto war resolutions or war funding bills. And the Senate should go nuclear to end a filibuster on such resolutions. We demand an up and down vote on this war!!!!

[MadHound]

77. Actually, since the Dems are attaching this all as amendments to a war spending bill

Bush is perfectly within his rights to veto it. Sadly, and infuriatingly ironic that the Dems will pass another war funding bill in order to try and get this through. Somehow, somewhere, I'm thinking that these amendments will be stripped off, and we'll once again be treated to the spectre of the Dems voting for more war money. And if that doesn't happen, well, Bush will simply veto it.

I agree about going nuclear in the Senate, but sadly I doubt that it will happen.

The simplest and easiest solution is for the Dems to bury any and all war funding bill in committee, defunding the war and forcing the troops home. Pity that the Dems took this option off the table before they even took their seats.

[Polemicist]

82. The Constitution doesn't say that...

The Constitution doesn't specify how Congress has to exert it's war powers. All it says is that "Congress shall have the Power".

They can attach their wishes to a spending bill or a resolution, or call it whatever they wish. The President has no veto power over Congress's decisions regarding war and funding of war.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....



Show me where it says the President can veto a Congressional war resolution, war bill, or war funding. Regardless of what you call it, if it concerns Constitutional War Powers, the Congress is where the buck stops.

If the founders had intended decisions regarding war to be made jointly with the Executive, they would have stated exactly such in this section of the Constitution. They did not. Bush can't veto any Congressional action regarding war or war spending.

Unless we let him.

[MadHound]

89. You missed it by one section

Article I, Section 7:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.


Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.


Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Notice the language, the use of the word "all" That means each and every one, including war funding etc. Therefore Bushboy can indeed veto what he wishes, and thus all of the Dems efforts come to naught.

Again, the surest, shortest way for the Dems to get us out of Iraq is to simply bury every single war funding bill in Committee. No need to do anything else, no need to try and wrangle it through Congress only to get vetoed by Bush. Defund the war, and it will come to an end. Anything short of that simply means the Dems are dicking around, posturing for the press, and thousands continue to die.

[SaveElmer]

84. I believe...and correct me if I am wrong...

That certain spending bills cannot be filibustered...

[MadHound]

90. Under reconcilliation, you are correct

However that still leaves the power of the veto pen, which in the end is all that matters:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

92. Yes but then the onus would be on Bush...nt

[MadHound]

94. You say that like it actually means something.

It doesn't. Bush isn't running for another term, none of the cabal in his administration are running for anything, his approval is as low as it's going to go. It simply won't matter to him. Besides, there's money for Bushco and his buddies to make off this war, and less that two years left to do so.

Bush will veto without blinking an eye or caring one whit.

[SaveElmer]

95. WOuld mean something for Republicans running...

For President...particularly those that have supported Bush's escalation policy (McCain)

[underpants]

83. Let him veto it nt

[ronnykmarshall]

85. I agree.

The american people want our troops home and the more bushie screams and yells to keep them there, the more the GOP will fall apart.

It a shame that our troops lives are being used as pawns.

[MadHound]

91. You say that like Bushco really gives a damn

Frankly, with his poll numbers the way they are, he has nothing to lose, he can go no lower. Secondly, he and his corporate cronies really don't give a damn about the GOP either. Sure, it is a convient vehicle, but if it fails to further their efforts of raping this country and the rest of the world, they'll tear it to shreds:shrug:

[phatkatt]

17. I hope they specifically forbid "redeployment" into Iran!

Also define the "limited number of troops" that would remain.

[Madspirit]

18. k&r and Whoohoohoo!! n/t

[wicket]

19. Yes!

:woohoo:

[Beaverhausen]

22. yeah!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. ALRIGHT!!!! I can't wait to hear the RW whining on the Senate floor.

Now they have to either vote against/for it or filibuster when the MAJORITY of citizens want us the hell OUT OF IRAQ! OR, if it passes...the psycho vetoes the bill and kills the repuke's chances of being elected in '08!:rofl::rofl: I love this move. It's a good one. It's a win win for the Dems. Either it passes and we bring the troops HOME...BIG...HUGE WIN! Or, it's filibustered or vetoed and the repukes go down in FLAMES in '08!:thumbsup:

[Initech]

27. See? This is what we elected them to do!

:woohoo:

[ClayZ]

28. WHOO HOOO! K and R

[demrabble]

29. The War is a TRAGIC MISTAKE

The war in Iraq is a tragic mistake.

No one -- NOT ONE MORE -- person -- soldier or Iraqi person -- should die in this awful, terrible, tragic mistake.

Our involvement should have ended months ago.

The action by the Senate is a start -- but it MUST be completed SOON.

NOT ONE MORE LIFE LOST IN THIS MISTAKE!

[Morgana LaFey]

41. You now, that's the way I feel about it, and this resolution

strikes me as just something political. Maybe it's GOOD political, or maybe it will only be called political, but -- I wish I were more optimistic.

[halobeam]

79. re-read post 23...

I really felt the same way until I read post 23. Our reps can't just do NOTHING because it won't pass or it'll be vetoed. They have to start showing where they stand, and it's results will show what each republican rep. stands for too. The admin. we know where they stand, and being the case he'd veto this, we can't stop doing what we believe in, throw our hands up, giving up.

That said.. IMO...STOP THE FUNDING and these reps ought to be out in the street meeting w/ their constituents EDUCATING them that this (after all other options have been denied by the WH) ending of funds is the only way to END THE WAR.

AND THE WH gave us this ONLY choice to stop the war. Period. It wouldn't hurt if Reps had clear facts of w/drawal of funds would not affect the money needed for x y and z (ie... money to bring our troops home).

[Morgana LaFey]

93. Yeah, I understand the thinking

I'm just not sure if it'll work AND I'm concerned that they aren't really putting enough into this project.

[Amonester]

65. The War is NOT a TRAGIC MISTAKE

The War in Iraq is just the beginning of a plan drafted by only a few lunatic neoconservatives, in order for them - and a small circle of warprofiteers - to make billions (then trillions) off the American Taxpayers (a la Enron, but a lot worse), and which ultimate goal was (and still is) to dominate the world using military power (a la Fourth Reich, but a lot worse, in part because they don't care about the well being of the environment of this fragile planet Earth is).

No. The War is not a tragic mistake. Is is a big crime, though. The biggest crime in history.

That's why these criminal lunatics must be stopped.

They must be stopped like the Third Reich's criminals had to be stopped sixty years ago.

Please stop repeating the M$M's sold-out shills' lies.

The truth is it was not a mistake for the neocons. It will become THEIR mistake($) when they'll get indicted, found guilty, and imprisoned for their crimes.

[ClassWarrior]

31. Proudly giving R #50 since 2007.

NGU.

[blondeatlast]

32. This boxes the RRR's into a very uncomfortable corner.

Now they are on the record as to whether they support this madness or give a damn what their constituents think.

Very needed and very, very shrewd. I like this bunch--GIVE 'EM HELL, HARRY!

[Blackhatjack]

33. Let Repub Tea Leaf Readers Explain What Happens When Repubs Vote Against This....

The public overwhelmingly will support this binding resolution.

Let the Republicans vote on the record against it and let Bush veto it.

Voters will be even more incensed at the polls in 2008, and they may hit the streets in massive protests even before that.

[emulatorloo]

47. per Gallup, "70% of Republicans approve of Bush's job performance"

If they vote against, they are playing to their deluded base. And that is going to be a big mistake

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. 70% of the tiny rump of the remaining Republicans, that probably means.

[meldroc]

34. Sweet! Any chance of getting this past a GOP filibuster?

You know Mitch will do it. He WILL filibuster.

I'd say we should let him filibuster. Better yet, fix the rules in the Senate to force the GOP to do a physical filibuster. No "let's announce a filibuster to the head and quietly kill the bill." Make them read from the dictionary for 48 hours straight while wearing a catheter. And make sure C-SPAN broadcasts every single minute of it, with captions on the screen explaining exactly what they're doing.

[MoonRiver]

36. Fighting Dems!

Keep it up!! We love it when you stand up to the evil bushbots!

:kick: and :thumbsup:

[AndyTiedye]

37. This is SOOO Kicked and Recommended

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

Is that enough kicks to win a cloture vote?

[valerief]

39. DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! HURRAY! BOUT TIME!

[FatDave]

40. Looks like Olbermann picked the wrong week for his vacation

So...much...happening...

[npincus]

42. K & R

[MasonJar]

43. I am so proud of our dems. n/t

[AnOhioan]

44. K&R

Even if the pubbies manage to stall it or defeat the measure, I am thrilled to see the Senate Dems finally taking a hardline stance against the madness.

[uppityperson]

45. k&r

[Joe Chi Minh]

48. Maybe this is a preliminary to cutting off the funding. You know, "We tried to be

as accommodating as possible, but since you believe bi-partisanship (and democracy) amount to date rape, we'll going along with you on that. No funding without the kind of checks and restrictions you seem unable and unwilling to honour voluntarily." In other words, just enough to pay for a seemly withdrawal of the troops.

[halobeam]

80. YEP,.. this is the last chance repubs have to end war WITH funds.

Very nice.

[mnhtnbb]

50. Finally!

[proud patriot]

51. About time

:woohoo:

[lonestarnot]

52. Hmmmf. 3/31/2008, that's possibly 1095 more dead troops,

More than likely more than that.

[ClassWarrior]

58. 120 days? Are you reading a Toltec calendar?

:wtf:

NGU.

[lonestarnot]

63. It is March right?

365 days times 3 equals 1095.

[ClassWarrior]

64. How do 120 days equal 365 days?

NGU.

[lonestarnot]

67. Where are you getting 120 days?

I thought the last day stated was a day in March 2008? :shrug:

[EndElectoral]

53. Let the idiot veto it! Make him the one responsible for continuing this war

[kdpeters]

54. YES YES YES BLOODY YES!

[Jack Rabbit]

55. Well, I hate the idea of micromanaging the President

A White House squatter is a different matter.

[lovuian]

57. Woohoo I want them out NOW

:woohoo:

[malaise]

59. K & R

These are great days. Hope all Dems have body guards.

[rhett o rick]

61. Who's got a plan??? We got a plan!!! nm

[bdamomma]

62. let's lean on our senators and reps heavy, give them

the support they will need to fight these thugs, this is not the time to back down.

[Cobalt Violet]

66. Woo Hoo.

[CGowen]

69. What is

"more effectively wage the war on terror"

I have to think of Bush
Bush: 'I don't think you can win' war on terror
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/31/Decision2004/Bush___I_don_t_think_.shtml


And what is Force Protection? How many have to stay?

Goal to redeploy all combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008
except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes

- Force Protection
- Training and equipping Iraqi Troops
- Targeted Counter-terror operations

The Department of Defense (DoD) defines "antiterrorism" as "defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and property to terrorist acts." This is distinct from "counterterrorism," which refers to "offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism. Both are part of the DoD concept of "force protection," which brings together all the security disciplines in a broader program to protect service members, civilian employees, family members, facilities and equipment.
http://www.dss.mil/training/csg/security/T5terror/Intro.htm

[NastyRiffraff]

71. K&R

Great news. Yes, I know it probably won't pass. I know that even if it does, Pissypants will veto it, or ignore it with a "signing statement."

But those who vote against it get to explain themselves to their own constituents, and to the American people, who want OUT of this war. Face it, if the Senate Democrats waited to introduce only legislation that they're sure will pass, they would do nothing, especially with Lieberman blocking for the Republicans at every turn.

[dweller]

72. sad to give the 3,190th rec ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x374713
dp

[Divine Discontent]

73. MOST

excellent!

this is exactly what needs done, and then they turn around and say they will try to fix habeus corpus... go go go dems, while we got the chance with the majority, do it!!

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<--- check it out! 08 stickers

[Roland99]

78. *FINALLY*!!!

[Land Shark]

86. K&R for progress, win or lose surely it's entitled to a vote

[Duppers]

87. frickin' excellent!

'bout time is right!

[stonebone]

96. kick

[HappyWeasel]

97. Excellent. We will be true to our convictions while the Right will be seen are obstructionists,

whinners and the party of "no".