Here's a plan. . .for the dems. . .Repeal IWR

[stellanoir]

Repeal the Iraq War Resolution.

I've posted the following before in response to "but they voted for the war" cacophonous nonsense.

The IWR granted * the authority to use force against Saddam Hussein under the specific condition that * get UN approval.

* NEVER got UN approval. Hussein let the inspectors back in.

It was never intended to be a blank check for endless occupation or indefinately and irreparably trashing an entire country.

* misused that authority and he should be denied having any more. So there.

Repeal HAVA, the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act while you're at it as well.

(Yikes. I think someone slipped me some of philosoraptor's java this morning.)

[Glorfindel]

1. What you said...k&r!

n/t

[w4rma]

2. Just pull his funding. Bush is ignoring the laws anyway. (nt)

[stellanoir]

4. I don't think he's generally very cognizant of costs anyway.

Yeah. . . the presumed impunity he struts around with is so-o-o irritating. The way he always chuckles when he says, "we'll bring them to justice. . ." as if. . .he even knows what justice is.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. It wouldn't matter, they actually have to have money to run the war.

Cut off funding, end the war.

[Canuckistanian]

13. Whenever he says "justice", people die

That's the only "justice" he knows.

[stellanoir]

14. yup

and you can just feel his utter satisfaction in doing so.

It's so disturbing especially as he parades himself around masquerading as a Born Again Christian.

[demnan]

3. You're on to something here

Should be the first order of business of the Dems coming in.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Here is a simpler plan: vote no on funding.

Any positive legislation can be blocked or vetoed. A no vote on funding ends the war. Takes real balls to vote no though. Won't happen.

[stellanoir]

7. Wasn't Kucinich proposing that approach?

I think I heard that.

[still_one]

8. It is so simple it is brillant!!!

[Roland99]

9. Didn't IWR become moot as soon as sovereignty was handed over in summer 2004?

[stellanoir]

10. Not sure about that but I'm sure some would say that.

It's just the language of that resolution "giving the pRes the authority to use force against Saddam Hussein/Iraq" just makes me wonder about two things:

Why is he still allowed to use force indefinately and if that authority needed to be granted, can't it possibly be revoked?

[Roland99]

11. Conyers should be all over this one first.

[WinkyDink]

12. If Republicans can, they'll simply re-fund. REPEAL is the answer.

[Beelzebud]

15. Or we could vote to keep funding it, AND introduce a draft resolution!!!

[blm]

16. What changes everything is the reality of CIVIL WAR. There is no authorization

in the IWR that covers civil war as part of its mission.

That is why it has been so important for MORE Democrats to use the language of civil war the way Kerry, Murtha and Feingold have been for almost a year now - it means that Senate will have to go in and draw up a NEW RESOLUTION, and Warner has acknowledged that point on the senate floor last summer during the withdrawal debate.

Why so many Senators are dancing AROUND the civil war issue and not acknowledging its reality is disturbing - they are deliberately waiting for the Baker panel to make the call, and that is just BULLSHIT!

[stellanoir]

17. That's a great point..

We were promised flowers and sweets on our cakewalk to transform Iraq into Switzerland and all we got was this lousy intractable civil war with far too many victims.

There was no provision for this and no foresight whatsoever. So of course IWR is no longer current or applicable but my question is this. . .

Can Congress's granting of authorization to use force be revoked on based on his insane recklessness and overtly relentless deceit?

I would love to know the answer to this.

[blm]

18. That's what Warner and Kerry were debating on the senate floor during withdrawal

debate and Kerry got Warner to agree that a new resolution would be needed to authorize any mission dealing with CIVIL WAR.

It really is crucial that civil war be acknowledged by ALL Democrats as a first step to force a new resolution and new debate. Because Warner was going to do this as a Republican head of the committee it kind of puts the new head on the spot - I can see why the Baker group is getting so much support from the Dems - it keeps them from having to tackle the civil war issue.

[stellanoir]

19. Yeah I really think there is more than a little wiggle room here

as that vote pinpoints where we were all sold down the river as Congress caved.

Ughhh

Still am looking for a legal mind who is more cogizant of protocal and precedence to chime in to see if we can legally reverse this mess.

That won't bring any of the lost lives of innocents back of course.

This can't continue. IMHO