Submit your comments on this article | ||||
Home Front: WoT | ||||
Dems want to 'revise' 2002 Iraq AUMF | ||||
2007-01-28 | ||||
![]() House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer -- No. 2 in the House behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- said that is one step Democrats might pursue to change conditions in Iraq. "Frankly, it is time for the president to accept that we are no longer involved in a nation-building exercise. We are involved in conflict resolution," Hoyer said during a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. After a series of congressional hearings on the war, "We will then explore appropriate ways to affect the policy and strategy being pursued in Iraq," Hoyer said.
Democrats want to shift responsibility to Next week, the Senate is expected to pass a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, and the House will likely follow suit, Hoyer said. "Beyond this resolution, though, our goal in the House is to conduct the kind of oversight of the president's policy that has been sorely missing during the nearly four years of this war. Democrats intend to hold this administration accountable," the Maryland Democrat said. "I believe the administration's Iraq policy is the most incompetent implementation of American foreign policy in my lifetime." Hoyer was also critical of other nations, saying they were ignoring their obligations. Of the $13.5 billion pledged by various nations for Iraq at a donors' conference in 2003, only $3.5 billion "has made its way to Iraq," he said. He noted the Iraq Study Group's call for the United States and Iraq to get Arab leaders involved. "We also should ask these countries to invest some small percentage of their hundreds of billions of dollars made in oil profits to help bolster security and reconstruction efforts," Hoyer said. He called for a new international conference. "I would propose that this conference be carried out under U.N. auspices, with robust involvement from various Iraqi factions, neighboring countries, key Middle East nations, the European Union and others, with the hope of brokering deals on securing Iraq's borders, disbanding militias, finalizing the constitution, establishing divisions of power and oil resources, and other issues."
"The international community must embrace its responsibility in Iraq," he added.
| ||||
Posted by:Steve White |
#8 Stupid. CW II is coming to a neighborhood near you. |
Posted by: SR-71 2007-01-28 15:47 |
#7 "I would propose that this conference be carried out under U.N. auspices, with robust involvement from various Iraqi factions, neighboring countries, key Middle East nations, the European Union and others, with the hope of brokering deals on securing Iraq's borders, disbanding militias, finalizing the constitution, establishing divisions of power and oil resources, and other issues." What a freakin' donkweed (don't know if that tag's been yet, but this is a family website)! Problem is all the ideas above are the CAUSE of Iraq's problems now. A UN Conference? Been done. Involve Iraqi "factions"? Been there/done that. Involve neighboring countries & key ME Nations? Ever heard of Syria & Iran being involved? Or, Saudi hate-funding of Paki madrassahs to start all this $h!t? Involve the EU? See: France, UN, Oil for Kofi Program...nuff said. "Brokering deals" on sealing the Iraqi border? How 'bout just freaking doin' it? Disbanding militias? See: Bush/2007 SOTU Address & readjustment speech the week before the SOTU. Constitution's been finalized. And, finally, the Iraqis are "hashing out" the remaining issues (oil profits, etc.). It's almost as if this guy's |
Posted by: BA 2007-01-28 11:23 |
#6 The graphic made me laugh out loud. Also appropriate, though different, would have been one of a 90 lb weakling throwing sand in the muscleman's face. |
Posted by: Thotle Hupavitch5406 2007-01-28 11:21 |
#5 Democrats == children from Lord of the Flys. They just are too stupid to see it. |
Posted by: 3dc 2007-01-28 09:45 |
#4 "...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy Hey Democrats! Remember those words? He must be wondering whatever happened to that Democratic party. In a just world, Kennedy would rise up from the grave and toss both Pelosi and her little dog Murtha into the Potomac as an example to the rest of them. |
Posted by: SteveS 2007-01-28 02:38 |
#3 My brain and the brain of the average donk have to made out of completely different material. My brain says there is only one acceptable conclusion to this war. Victory, winning, success or whatever you want to call it. In the donks brain however, this outcome is completely unthinkable and the only outcome they can think of is the the outcome that is unthinkable in my brain, failure. |
Posted by: Mike N. 2007-01-28 00:52 |
#2 Dumbasses. The AUMF is not a computer file whose name you can change and voila! now thew left runs executive warmaking powers. There are real consequences with losses of real lives, American lives. You can't agree to a war and then later decide that you are against it, not without winning the war. We have real live citizens who have staked their very lives and well being on a positive outcome to the war. The left may think they owe no one anything for their high minded idealism, but they do owe those servicefolks consideration and support this thing to its only acceptable conclusion. It is their moral obligation to support these citizens who are risking their lives to win the war. It is not a choice. It's an obligation. Real consequences will follow regardless of the outcome. |
Posted by: badanov 2007-01-28 00:25 |
#1 I suspect that a "revision" of the AUMF-- while the war is still underway-- would be a very difficult thing for the Dems to pull off. Any change of langugage would only be an overtly obvious attempt to usurp the Commander in Chief's constitutional authority to conduct the war. It's all bluster, or sound and fury signifying nothing. |
Posted by: Captain America 2007-01-28 00:13 |