Sen. Dodd (D-CT) introduces legislation for new Iraq authorization

[Thorgrim]

Washington, D.C. – Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, today announced legislation which would limit the President’s authority to escalate U.S. military involvement in Iraq absent a new Congressional authorization to do so. Specifically, the bill would prohibit U.S. combat forces being increased beyond current levels without advance approval by Congress. Sen. Dodd stated that the authority given by Congress in 2002 to intervene in Iraq never contemplated that U.S. troops would be engaged in a civil war in Iraq, and the President must now come back to Congress to seek authorization for this new and ill-conceived mission. Sen. Dodd’s bill would also cap the number of troops at the level of troops present on January 16, 2007. Any additional increase in troop levels beyond January 16th levels must be specifically authorized by Congress.

Dodd Announces Bill Requiring New Authorization for Escalation in Iraq | U.S. Senator Christopher J. Dodd

Good to see Dems stepping up to the plate, Republican conservatives like Sen. Warner have said they have a similiar feeling...the mission they signed on for is complete, no saddam, no governmental ties to al-qaeda, no WMD...mission over

New authorization is needed to occupy a country in civil war

[Diesel66]

maybe he better go back and look at what he said yes to.




Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

maybe he better go back and look at what he said yes to.




Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Nobody should ever have their opinion change when presented with new evidence and circumstances. Ever.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

maybe he better go back and look at what he said yes to.




Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

first part doesn't apply to iraq very well (terrorists there are ethnic-based, not US-attack based)

second part is so broad you could say that gives him the authority to nuke israel, iran and the entire middle east

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

first part doesn't apply to iraq very well (terrorists there are ethnic-based, not US-attack based)

And that matters how ? They still are killing Americans.

second part is so broad you could say that gives him the authority to nuke israel, iran and the entire middle east

well since the authorization only applies to Iraq, no.

[Thorgrim]

I don't recall the text saying that all action MUST be strictly limited to inside iraq's 2003 border, but if that's the case, again we could just nuke all of iraq...kurds, christians, and all

and nationalists who kill an occupying force are not terrorists, iraq is not that simple

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't recall the text saying that all action MUST be strictly limited to inside iraq's 2003 border, but if that's the case, again we could just nuke all of iraq...kurds, christians, and all

He could. but shouldnt we deal with reality ?

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.


doesnt say a thing about Iran.

and nationalists who kill an occupying force are not terrorists, iraq is not that simple

those who use explosives to blow up civilians are.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

He could. but shouldnt we deal with reality ?

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.


doesnt say a thing about Iran.


those who use explosives to blow up civilians are.

what about those who use knives to kill children of a different color in Darfur, sounds like terrorism to me, why aren't we fighting those terrorists?

I'm glad you brought up 1 and 2, because they both deal with a situation that's not in effect. The Maliki government is not "a threat to the US" nor are they refusing to enforce UNSC resolutions

Another argument for why we need a re-authorization bill

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Good to see Dems stepping up to the plate, Republican conservatives like Sen. Warner have said they have a similiar feeling...the mission they signed on for is complete, no saddam, no governmental ties to al-qaeda, no WMD...mission over

New authorization is needed to occupy a country in civil war

He is running for President in 2008. He is making noise for the same reason Hillary Clinton is doing it! The posturing race begins!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

He is running for President in 2008. He is making noise for the same reason Hillary Clinton is doing it! The posturing race begins!

John Warner is running for president...

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

what about those who use knives to kill children of a different color in Darfur, sounds like terrorism to me, why aren't we fighting those terrorists?

With what force ?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

John Warner is running for president...

Obama is running and he just joined the "One up" three ring circus to get to the mike on this issue!