home

When The GOP Supported Fully Funded Withdrawal

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:37:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Senator Russ Feingold reminds us:

The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

Think the Media will include THAT in its reporting? The point is simple, when the Congress believes a military operation should end, it is well within its rights, indeed, it is its duty, to NOT FUND said military operation. Whether it is Somalia, or Iraq.

< Italia Federici Gets Target Letter in Griles - Abramoff Probe | Sen. Dodd To Co-Sponsor Reid-Feingold Bill >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    When The GOP Supported Fully Funded Withdrawal | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I think I've seen that before (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by TexDem on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    Ya know it's hard to dispute history. But some would like to ignore it

    Hah. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    Nice anticiptory refutation. Sen. Feingold is thinking.

    Now THAT is pre-emption!!!

    My only complaint is why it took them (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TexDem on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    so long to point this out.

    Parent
    But isn't "them" also us.? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:47:00 PM EST
    I wasn't aware until I read BTD's diary of the content of McCain's bill.

    Parent
    In 1993 I was working (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by TexDem on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:04:09 PM EST
    18-20 hour days as a beverage manager for a hotel and wasn't as attentive as I am now. Feingold was obviously there. What took so long to jog his memory is all I'm asking?

    We could have used this ammo weeks ago. BTD could have used this months ago to bolster has argument and rebut his critics with recent history and more GOP hypocrisy.

    In other words, the GOP was for defunding before they were against it.

    Parent

    TexDem - you forgot the formatting buttons (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    the GOP was for defunding before they were against it

    ;-)

    Parent

    Monitoring three sites for responses (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TexDem on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    clicked post to quick.

    Parent
    just being helpfpul ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:23:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanx (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TexDem on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:29:13 PM EST


    Parent
    March 15th (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    Russ' floor speech http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/19705

    Parent
    Jan 29 (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    Feingold's HuffPo column

    Congress has used this power several times before, most recently in Somalia and in Bosnia in the 1990s. Nevertheless, I'm sure the White House and others will resort to their usual intimidation tactics to try to paint this proposal as not supporting the troops. I'd like to hear from the President exactly how sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into a civil war supports them.


    Parent
    Feingold has probably said this before (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    but he hasn't gotten much MSM coverage till Reid co-sponsored. I bet looking back through things he's said will probably uncover similar statements from him, and from Kucinich as well.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    Doesn't Osama Bin Laden use our 'cut and run' approach to Somalia as a basis of his stepped up approach to terror?

    Not saying it was right/wrong policy, just saying that there are consequences.

    My opinion is that anybody can use (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    anything they want as a reason to do something.  That wasn't the reason why he was successful though.  Anybody can make up or say anything they want after the fact too.

    Parent
    The Somalia operation (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 06:37:03 PM EST
    was begun under Bush I. But Clinton gets the blame. A lesson for the Dem candidates. Be careful what you wish for. If the US ever did pull out of Iraq, any further violence that occurs will be used by the conservatives to show how poorly the liberals handle foreign policy. Whether the US leaves Iraq or stays, it's a disaster.

    Apples & Oranges (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Fritz on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:15:34 PM EST
    President Clinton had made the decision to end the "nation building" mission in Somalia.  Our forces were under UN command.  President Bush has not made the decision to end the mission in Iraq and our forces are under our command.  Had President Clinton chosen to escalate, then McCain's rhetoric would hypocritical.  Democrats rhetoric in 1993 to continue Somalian operations is the hypocrisy of today.

    NOT apples and oranges (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    rethugs are attempting to argue that inherent executive power gives Bush authority to do what ever he wants, as long as he wants, and that Congress has no authority to defund his fantasies.

    Parent
    Why wait? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Fritz on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    Democrats are not even proposing the failed 1993 McCain amendment referenced here.  If all is lost in Iraq, then end it now.  

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:40:10 PM EST
    On second thought, how about 4 years ago?

    Parent
    Why not October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Fritz on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    Since that is not possible; unless Al Gore has invented a time machine; it is not a policy.  Somalia didn't have this vote, our troops deserved better.

    A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

    Baucus (D-MT)
    Bayh (D-IN)
    Biden (D-DE)
    Breaux (D-LA)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Carnahan (D-MO)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Cleland (D-GA)
    Clinton (D-NY)
    Daschle (D-SD)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Dorgan (D-ND)
    Edwards (D-NC)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Hollings (D-SC)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Lieberman (D-CT)
    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Miller (D-GA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Torricelli (D-NJ)


    Parent

    You can probably find a longer list of rethugs (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    If you look.

    I fully agree with you, fritzo - It's long past time to end it.

    Parent

    he determines to be necessary and appropriate (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Fritz on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

     (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

     (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

     (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

    I didn't say how Congress determines and we operate under a UN mandate.  They authorized it, they should remember that, and fund it as the President determines.

    Parent

    Gasp. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    You mean you're reneging on our agreement that it's long past time it should be ended?

    Parent
    No (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Fritz on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 04:44:18 PM EST
    What I am saying, Bush is President acting under law, the public did not elect a veto proof majority.  If in 1993, Congress had passed a funding measure that instructed President Clinton against his will,  to escalate our Somalian mission had the polls favored it, wouldn't that be ridiculous?  

    Parent
    You're not reneging??? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 05:00:18 PM EST
    You mean you still think it's long past time to defund it and end it?

    I knew I could count on you, fritz. Matthew Dowd couldn't be the only rethug who's finally seen the light.

    fritz - you've nearly restored my faith that rethugs can think, here today.

    Parent

    Ahh (none / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 07:06:25 AM EST
    1993, great year.
    Massive firings of Prosecutors and a WTC bombing.  What memories.

    Wile (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:52:55 AM EST
    You don't have to go back that far. Just look at 2001. Same events. The only differences were the warnings prior to the attack.

    When The GOP Supported Fully Funded Withdrawal | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment