Dodd: The Fight Continues; Obama: Learning To Fight

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:15:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who I support for the Democratic Presidential nomination, promises to keep fighting to end the Iraq Debacle:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), our newest proponent of the not funding after a date certain option, learns that the GOP does not play nice, and strikes back very effectively:

More please Senator. And fight for the only alternative for really ending the Debacle, the not funding option.

Between, John Edwards, Senator Obama and my personal favorite, Sen. Dodd, we have three more leaders capable of leading on this issue. Senator Clinton's voice in this fight would be most welcome. Her recent votes are a good start, but I personally would like to see more leadership. I am confident she can deliver such leadership. Please step up Senator Clinton.

< Ending the Iraq Debacle: It's Just A Matter Of Time? No | Bush Plans For Iraq: NYTimes Has Bridge In Brooklyn To Sell You >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Dodd: The Fight Continues; Obama: Learning To Fight | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Did you see Richardson's response? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:43:33 PM EST

I think he hints at what you want. Though it might be his old "plan" repackaged.

The best way to support our troops is to get them out of Iraq, and this bill will not move us any closer to that. The Democratic Congress is missing an opportunity. They should repeal the original resolution that gave the President the authority to take action against Iraq and replace it with one that requires the President to take all the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. Congress has the authority to do that under Article One of the Constitution and under the War Powers Act and the President cannot veto it. Congress should not pass any appropriations beyond the date of de-authorization. By doing it that way, Congress would both fully fund our troops and get them out of Iraq as soon as possible.

Release here.

BTW, Dodd is the man, and I hope he decides to stay in the Senate, if this bid doesn't work out.

Interesting but not practical (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:47:25 PM EST

They should repeal the original resolution that gave the President the authority to take action against Iraq and replace it with one that requires the President to take all the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. Congress has the authority to do that under Article One of the Constitution and under the War Powers Act and the President cannot veto it.

I think there is a principled argument for this and I have made it. But it is gray at best.

The reality is enactment cannot be the key to any plan. NOT enacting must be the key.


I agree that it wouldn't pass the Senate (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:56:10 PM EST

But couldn't it be almost as effective not working as Reid-Feingold would. After all, the idea is to set a date certain, which both woud appear to do.


I think not (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:00:16 PM EST

Tying it to an enacted bill is the problem.


But neither will be enacted (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:02:54 PM EST

It's about the Caucus, no?


As Richardson describes it (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:11:15 PM EST

it is conditional on enactment of deauthorization.

I do not like that at all.


: Very well. n/t (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:24:52 PM EST

Learning by experience (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by chemoelectric on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:19:38 PM EST

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), our newest proponent of the not funding after a date certain option, learns that the GOP does not play nice.

Therein the value of an unpleasant experience. A thing I do like about Obama, aside from what I don't like about him, is that he doesn't whine 'Unfair! Unfair! You should be ashamed!' like most other Washington Democrats.

(What I'd really like to see is a relentless response, where eventually the targeted 'Republicans' cried for mercy, but that would be mainly for my entertainment. I'm sure Obama has better things to do. :) )

: Chemo (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 26, 2007 at 10:26:11 AM EST

Obama got talked mean to by McCain...
Wooooooo Wooooo
I love it. When politicans fight, we win.
In the meantime Obama has learned how to spell "flak."

I just saw.... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Sat May 26, 2007 at 09:01:46 AM EST

Marvelous Marvin vs. Tommy the Hitman on HBO...thats fighting.

Our soldiers in Iraq and the people of Iraq, they're fighting to stay alive.

What these clowns in congress are doing ain't fighting...sounds a lot like making excuses and trying to save votes to me.

why do you continue to ignore Richardson (none / 0) (#11)
by fiver on Sun May 27, 2007 at 03:42:54 AM EST

as if because he isn't a US Senator that his stance doesn't matter? You couldn;t get more blunt than his stated stance on the Iraq war:

The Iraq War is costing Americans $8 billion each month. By implementing my plan to de-authorize the war and withdraw ALL troops by the end of the year, we can start redirecting these funds toward what matters most for Americans: improving education, expanding access to quality health care, and addressing the REAL security threats like the Taliban, nuclear proliferation, and global warming.

That couldn't be any clearer than anything Dodd or Obama or Edwards had stated.

You know I love you to death, but your continued ignoring of Richardson and his solid stances couldn't strike me as more odd. I disagee with his healthcare position and personally believe a single-payer system is the best way to go, but I don't understand why you of all persons would continue to persist in ignroing Richardson and his pracitcal yet progressive stance on many issues and resume on a variety of issues, just because he isn't a Senator doesn't mean his positions aren't as vaild.