PDA

View Full Version : Anti-war groups give-up the fight to end funding for Iraq War


Regis Philbin
Jan 17th, 2008, 05:27 PM
If there's one thing libs are good at it's surrender. They're "giving up". Anyone surprised? How about that promise from Pelosi to end the war? Feel like you were let down by the Democrat Party?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7949.html

Anti-war groups retreat on funding fight

By: Ryan Grim
Jan 17, 2008 06:03 AM EST

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007, the year ended with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began.

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.

“There was a consensus that last year was not productive,” John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. “Our expectations were dashed.”

The meeting, held at an office on K Street, was attended by around 20 representatives of influential anti-war groups, including MoveOn.org and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, which spent $12 million last year opposing the war.

Isaacs said he thought the meeting would be a difficult one, with an adamant faction pressing for continued focus on timelines and funding. It wasn’t to be.

pinky
Jan 18th, 2008, 04:14 PM
Biding time isn't exactly giving up.

ConnieB
Jan 20th, 2008, 01:08 AM
The Democrats have done nothing as far as I'm concerned...they were and always will be just talk, so they can get elected.

Congress can not force the president to withdraw troops once they give him permission to activate them, which occured when this began. If they do place this timeline on our President, they are overstepping their bounderies and going against the Constitution which gives the President his authority over the troops and their mobilization. So I knew the Dem. would not be able to enforce this.

I seriously think we need to keep some troops over there after the conflict is over because Iraq is in the center of the Middle East and we'd have quick and better access to any areas such as Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, if something should arise, which is could in coming years, and we have to plan for that. I mean look at how many troops/bases we have in other countries...Many of those bases were built after the wars were done, so we could have a continued presences in those countries. Are we needed there any more? Not in all of them, so we could actually move some troops to other bases around the world, including Iraq. If we leave Iraq completely, I'm 80% sure we'll back there within 10 years again, if not sooner.

DoubleEdgeSword
Jan 20th, 2008, 06:26 AM
Congress can not force the president to withdraw troops once they give him permission to activate them, which occured when this began. If they do place this timeline on our President, they are overstepping their bounderies and going against the Constitution which gives the President his authority over the troops and their mobilization. So I knew the Dem. would not be able to enforce this.



Congress is not restricted soley by the Constitution, rather by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. There is much controversy over this Resolution. Some in Congress wish to rewrite it to give more power to Congress in times of declared war; however, since the debate has been ongoing since the Resolution was passed, it seems unlikely Congress will be adressing it anytime soon.

Congress can withhold funding, they can direct what kind of war will be fought, i.e. ground vs air, and they can geographically limit a war, among other provisions laid out in the Resolution.

pinky
Jan 20th, 2008, 09:18 AM
The Democrats have done nothing as far as I'm concerned...they were and always will be just talk, so they can get elected.
Unlike the Republicans? :roll:

Without a veto-proof majority, the Democrats can't do much, because Bush won't allow their bills to become law if they make him look bad (sort of like closing the barn door after the horse got out, but I digress...). Until the Democrats control the White House or have a larger majority in Congress, ANY initiatives they offer will be shot down, and it has NOTHING to do with their inability to get bills passed.