The Democrats "War Council" Decides To Take A Mulligan

Spread the love

First we had the Biden resolution, which was quickly dropped. Then the Levin resolution, same outcome. Then the Pelosi-Reid resolution which also came to a quick demise and now we come to their latest attempt. Taking a mulligan on the AUMF:

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military’s role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

[…]Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military’s role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

[…]The new framework would set a goal for withdrawing combat brigades by March 31, 2008, the same timetable established by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Once the combat phase ends, troops would be restricted to assisting Iraqis with training, border security and counterterrorism.

Senior Democratic aides said the proposed resolution would be sent directly to the Senate floor for action, without committee review, possibly as an amendment to a homeland security bill scheduled for debate next week.

And out MSM is chomping at the bit to support them. Even going so far as to call the leading Democrats a "war council"…

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) began calling for a reauthorization of the war early last month and raised it again last week, during a gathering in the office of Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Participants included Kerry, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.), Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.). Those Democratic senators have emerged as an unofficial war council representing the caucus’s wide range of views.

Levin, Schumer, Reed, and Feingold….a war council.

What kind of weed are these guys smoking?

Then we have their ideas for this new "binding" resolution:

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

Which Hinderaker quickly pounced on:

That sounds like a really great idea. If someone plants an IED or shoots at our troops, they can’t fire back until they determine whether the attackers are al Qaeda or garden-variety insurgents.

I have a feeling this trial balloon is not going to get airborne. One good thing, though: the Dems’ Senate leadership is floating this concept in part because they are unhappy with Mad Jack Murtha’s “slow bleed” strategy. Not, of course, because they object to his objective of bringing about defeat; rather, because they think Murtha’s plan could create political liabilities.

This is the result of the War Council’s braintrust. Tie the hands of our troops to the point where they will be walking targets with no authorization to fire back. Unbelievable.

How will they push this new tactic? By bringing up WMD’s again:

"We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein," Biden said of the 2002 resolution in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. "The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq."

But lookie lookie. The internet still exists and can provide us all with a copy of the AUMF. Lets take a gander at a few sections. You can read the whole thing here:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

[…]Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

[…]Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

[…]Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

[…]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[…]Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688′;

[…]Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups

[…]Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region

So in addition to WMD’s we have the support and harboring of terrorists, the hostile acts committed by Iraq against the US, Saddam’s repression of the civilian population, the war on terrorism, and to bring peace in the region.

Doh!

Then the way they are going about it is just as cowardly as the non-binding resolution. Attaching the thing to a Homeland Security funding bill. Rather then just write the damn thing and putting it up for a vote they want to dare the true War Council to filibuster them and the President to veto the thing.

Cowards one and all.

Other’s Blogging:

Curt

See author page