Washblog

... whoops!

quietly waiting for someone else to lead.

nevermind.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Fri Jan 19, 2007 at 08:25:30 PM PST

---

ones to propose resolutions to cap troops. Clinton and Obama are racing each other to the grandstand. All of these plans cap at either 130,000 or 132,000 or in that vacinity. And then there's Biden who went on Meet the Press two weeks ago whining about how powerless the Dems are, "As a practical matter, there's no way to say to the president, 'stop'". So he's changed his mind? Not really. All of the resolutions are non-binding, so why don't they just get on board with each other to say "no more troops" in one non-binding resolution. Then maybe they can spend time devising a real binding plan to get our troops the hell out of there. (And maybe it will keep Biden from making a fool of himself with that plan of his to tear Iraq into three parts, something which Iraqis are very much opposed to).

More interesting will be the House plans. Murtha has a detailed, straightforward plan that calls for redeployment by the end of this year, and keeping a rapid-ready force around Kuwait in case needed.

by shoephone on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:38:12 AM PST

---

was the writer - great detail.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/17/17828/9261

here is an excerpt, there are 12 resolutions cited.

S. 121, introduced on January 4th by Sen. Russ Feingold. The bill would give the Pentagon and State Dept. jointly 60 days to submit a plan for redeployment from Iraq, within 180 days from enactment. Cosponsors: Boxer.

S. 233, introduced on January 9th by Sen. Ted Kennedy. The bill would prohibit funds for any U.S. forces above the number of forces already there as of January 9, 2007, without a specific Congressional authorization for such increase. Cosponsors: Boxer, Brown, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Menendez, Sanders.

H.R. 353, introduced on January 9th by Rep. Ed Markey. This is the House counterpart to Kennedy's bill. Cosponsors: Abercrombie, Conyers, DeFazio, Delahunt, DeLauro, Grijalva, Hinchey, Maloney, McDermott, McGovern, Meehan, Olver, Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Tierney.

H. Res. 41, intruduced on January 9th by Rep. Marty Meehan. A non-binding resolution rejecting the escalation as "the wrong course of action and should not be done without an express authorization for the increase in an Act of Congress." Cosponsors:

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:25:02 AM PST

---

The Kos article that rmdSeaBos cited contains two references to Iran resolutions:

H. Con. Res. 33, introduced on January 16th by Rep. Peter DeFazio. A non-binding resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress. The resolution rejects the notion that either the AUMF of 2001 or the Iraq war resolution of 2002 authorize military action against Iran, and affirms that explicit authorization for military action is not discretionary, but a legal and constitutional requirement. Cosponsors: Blumenauer, Corrine Brown, Capuano, Conyers, Cummings, Doggett, Farr, Holt, Hooley, Kucinich, Lee, McCollum, McGovern, Murtha, Payne, Rothman, Stark, Mike Thompson, Woolsey.

H.J. Res. 14, introduced on January 12th by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). A binding resolution that rejects the suggestion that any prior provision of law authorizes an attack against Iran, and provides that absent an or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, any use of force against Iran would require Congressional authorization. Cosponsors: Abercrombie, DeFazio, Duncan (R-TN), Gilchrest (R-MD), Kucinich, Larson, Meehan, Murtha, Neal, Paul (R-TX), Taylor.

An interesting question is what will happen in the Senate. I'm hearing that something is in the works.

Here is Jones' short but sweet joint resolution:

JOINT RESOLUTION
Concerning the use of military force by the United States against Iran.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAN.

(a) Rule of Construction- No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran.

(b) Requirements- Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces, the President shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran.

by DWE on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:52:58 AM PST

---

It's interesting how little we're hearing about the Feingold plan in the MSM. His bill (S. 121) calls on the State Dept. and Pentagon to come up with a plan in 60 days for leaving Iraq within 180 days. Here's Feingold's bill:

A BILL
To provide for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES FORCES FROM IRAQ.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States to redeploy United States forces from Iraq by not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, while maintaining thereafter in Iraq the minimal level of United States forces sufficient to engage directly in targeted counterterrorism activities, train Iraq security forces, and protect United States infrastructure and personnel in Iraq.

(b) Report-

(1) REPORT ON STRATEGY FOR REDEPLOYMENT- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to Congress a report setting forth the strategy of the United States for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by not later than the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act (in this section referred to as the `redeployment date'), in accordance with the policy stated in subsection (a).

(2) ELEMENTS OF STRATEGY- The strategy set forth in the report under this subsection shall include the following:

(A) A flexible schedule for redeploying United States forces from Iraq by the redeployment date, in accordance with the policy stated in subsection (a).

(B) An estimate of the number, size, and character of United States military units needed in Iraq after the redeployment date, for purposes of counterterrorism activities, training Iraq security forces, or protecting United States infrastructure and personnel in Iraq.

(C) A strategy for managing the regional implications of the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq in accordance with the policy stated in subsection (a), including a description of proposed efforts to ensure a coordinated diplomatic, political, and development strategy to accompany such redeployment of United States forces.

(D) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of United States forces in Iraq during the redeployment under the policy stated in subsection (a), and a contingency plan for addressing dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a specified number of additional United States forces to remain in Iraq after the redeployment date.

(E) A strategy for repairing and strengthening United States forces to effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

by DWE on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:02:17 AM PST

---

Lieberman is saying that he'll filibuster an Iraq escalation resolution with the Republicans. Does anyone know what the chances are that the Republicans can keep the Biden resolution and others from getting a vote in the Senate?

by DWE on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:03:48 PM PST

---

zeus4prez on Kos has a superb summary of where specific Republicans are with regard to voting on various Iraq escalation resolutions and bills.

The writer has an excellent graphic that points out the number, 66, to override a Presidential veto.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) announce a bipartisan anti-escalation resolution; Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) announce a competing "centrist" bill likely to focus on Iraq Study Group recommendations.

And another one:

For now, Senate Dems appear united in opposition to escalation, though some have noted red-state Dem Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) as Dems that may need special attention on this issue.

by DWE on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:03:12 AM PST

---

While I wasn't looking, Sen. Murray signed on to the Biden resolution (S.Con.Res 2)

by DWE on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:29:24 AM PST

---