home

Iraq Troop Caps: Good Policy? Politics? Law?

Chris Dodd proposed legislation imposing a cap on troop levels in Iraq:

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) announced legislation today capping the number of troops in Iraq at roughly 130,000, saying that lawmakers should take an up-or-down vote on President Bush's plan to send additional troops to the country and not settle for the non-binding resolution several Senate leaders prefer.

Well, I do not think this is Constitutional or practical. I also do not think it is good politics or policy.

Kevin Drum gets this one right:

[T]hese moves by Dodd and Clinton actually strike me as the worst of all possible worlds. Legislation to get us out of Iraq would be a fine idea. Legislation to reinstitute the draft and send 200,000 more troops to Iraq would be a horrible idea, but would at least have some internal consistency. But legislation that essentially locks in place the status quo? That really makes no sense at all. If there's anything we can be absolutely sure of, it's the fact that the status quo isn't working. Democrats should either go the political route and pass a nonbinding resolution, or they should pull up their socks and support legislation that defunds the war and sets a timetable for withdrawal. There's really no way to triangulate out of this.

For those who wonder, my plan is to set a date when funding ends, say October 30, 2007. Announce it NOW. Vote on it NOW. Then it is up to Bush to have the troops out by then. If he does not, then he is the one endangering the troops. He has 9 months to get them out.

This is the only policy and plan left. And it is good politics. The American People will support such an action. In fact, I bet at least a third of Republicans in the House and Senate vote for it.

< Alberto Gonzales Should Be Impeached | Lawrence Korb Eviscerates A Surge Supporter >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's over, let's leave (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by eric on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:03:54 PM EST
    I look at this whole situation like this:  The US invaded Iraq, defeated its army, and deposed its goverment.  In that way, it "won" the war.

    Now, the US is an occupying force caught up in what is more or less a civil war.  At this point, what is the goal?  The military objective of deposing the Iraqi government (however one might feel about it) was achieved.  We certainly can't force everyone in Iraq to stop fighting and be friends with threat of force, can we?

    This thing is over.  Let's just leave.

    The Pelosi Democrats... (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Fredo on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 09:22:55 PM EST
    ...and the credulous stupes who expected so much from them are now just beginning to see how feckless and powerless she (and they) are.  When it comes to military operations, meet the new boss--same as the old boss.  Learn to live with it.  Try to learn to like it.  Or not.

    Oh my (none / 0) (#11)
    by eric on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 09:24:51 AM EST
    Because, after all, the new Congress has been in session for almost two weeks!

    Parent
    Learn to live with it, YOU sure as hell aren't (none / 0) (#12)
    by bx58 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:22:38 PM EST
     going to die from it.

    Boy Fredo you sound like one tough hombre. "Real men" like yourself,Cheney and fat Rush make my skin crawl. Are you a draft-dodging, warmongering tough guy like the others?

    Parent

    I'm starting to think.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    this guy is doing a Stephen Colbert type thing.

    Parent
    October 30 is to late (none / 0) (#1)
    by Andreas on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:39:57 PM EST
    The criminal war must be stopped NOW, not in more than half a year. The Democratic Party has no intention to stop it.


    I guess I will have to scratch Dodd off my list. (none / 0) (#2)
    by JSN on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    I heard Senator Dodd speak at a fundraiser for Dave Loebsack and
    I thought he seemed like a long shot possibility for supporting in the Iowa caucus. What he is doing is simple headline hunting showing a fundamental lack of common sense.

    Drum gets it wrong (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stewieeeee on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    And mis-represents the intent of the legislation.

    A cap does NOT lock in place the status quo.  A cap says nothing at all whatsoever about what can or can not happen in the short term or long term regarding defunding the war.  

    So Drum is wrong.

    I'll say this.  If the goal is to end the war, it's defense.  It's not offense.   But it is not what Drum says it is.  There is no reason at all that, once this legislation is passed, that a resolution can't also be passed later on to reduce the funding and the number of troops in Iraq.

    In short, yes.  It's defense but it's wrong to conclue defense prohibits one from going on offense later on.  It's not just wrong.  It's kind of dumb.  It locks in nothing at all but it does set the precedent that Congress can determine troop levels.  Which would be quite a coup actually.


    We're not going anywhere (none / 0) (#4)
    by bx58 on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:58:49 PM EST
    This war isn't ending anytime soon. Do you notice the media ginning up tensions and apprehensions before the next phase starts? Reminds me of Plan A; watch silently while the Israelis unsucessfully try to provoke a regional war.

    Screw provoking a war; Plan B is to just attack and watch the AIPAC beholden "liberals" keep their mouths shut.

    The ONLY thing that could stop this IS a draft, but that won't happen so it's a done deal.

    "Plenary Power" (none / 0) (#8)
    by Fredo on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 06:59:52 PM EST
    At least a few gentlepersons on the Left are beginning to realize that it establishes nothing at all to describe the Congress's power of the purse as "plenary."  The question for the Moonbats remains, can the Congress appropriate funds for this operation, while at the same time circumscribing the commander-in-chief's authority to deploy the nation's armed forces in that operation when, where, and in what number he chooses?  The answer, of course, is "no," and even certain dolts in the Democratic congressional caucus seem belatedly to be recognizing this.

    And it's all because liberals... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 07:25:10 PM EST
    ...are responsible for 9/11 and everything after in the first place. Just ask the ever clueless Dinesh D'Souza, at whose expense Steven Colbert has an unmatched comic and satirical time.

    Colbert doesn't just fly right over this dimwit's head, he orbits the guy's entire bizarro planet and destroys it.  With D'Souza incapable intellectually, forget comically, of keeping up.  Which is not to say he isn'tfunny.  Dinesh is a riot...in his own way.  

    For bx58 (none / 0) (#13)
    by Fredo on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    Actually, no, I'm neither a draft-dodger nor a warmonger.  Since you asked, I'll simply respond that I fought, and fought hard, for a full year in Vietnam (Sept. '67-Sept. '68), was personally decorated twice, and have no interest in mongering for war, whatever that means.  How about yourself?

    That makes it even worse. (none / 0) (#14)
    by bx58 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 05:36:01 PM EST
    You align yourself with the same kind of people who sold the same bill of goods to the people of the sixties. The predecessors of Cheney and Limbaugh, the people who Dwight Eisenhower warned against.

    You can't seriously think this was a good idea?

    I was a child in 67 and 68. Sorry you had to go.

    Parent

    "Sorry you had to go" (none / 0) (#16)
    by Fredo on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 07:20:30 PM EST
    I didn't have to.  I volunteered.

    It ain't about you (none / 0) (#17)
    by bx58 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 07:52:03 PM EST
    Please answer is the war a good idea? Was it ever?

    Parent