The Most critical Bill Ever Ignored
This was going to be facts on democrats part nine, but I stumbled upon an unfound diamond at http://thomas.loc.gov. The bill is H.R. 1292: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and for other reasons. The bill is sponsored by Representative John B Larson (D-CT).
Because that piece focuses on just one bill below I quote the bill in full:
“To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and for other motives. (Introduced in House)
HR 1292 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1292
To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and for other functions.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 1, 2007
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and for other objectives.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) opposite to the Weinberger Doctrine, which states that the United States should use military force only whether it is in the vital national interest of the United States and only with clearly defined political and military goals, the United States went to war against Iraq in March 2003 without clearly defined political and military goals.
(2) opposite to the Powell Doctrine, which states that whether the United States is to use military force it should be `overwhelming’ military force, the United States went to war against Iraq without the troop levels or strategy needed to secure a post-invasion Iraq.
(3) Ignoring the advice of United States military leaders and experts, the President sent United States troops into war against Iraq without sufficient levels needed for post-conflict success and without sufficient armor and related equipment, and has used the United States military in such a way that nowadays it is straining under the weight of the war.
(4) The justifications cited by the President for using military force against Iraq–that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had hyperlinks to al Qaeda–have not, to term, been proven right.
(5) On May 1, 2003, the President announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq, thus starting an entirely new phase–the occupation of Iraq.
(6) The justifications cited by the President for using military force against Iraq have shifted dramatically since Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), from combating the threat that Saddam Hussein allegedly posed to the United States, to establishing an Iraqi democracy, and to a larger vision of Middle Eastern democracy.
(7) Public Law 107-243 authorized the President to use force to `defend the national protection of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq’.
(8) Currently, United States troops are not facing a military force or direct threat to the United States in Iraq, rather they are facing both a Sunni insurgency against the United States occupation of Iraq and a violent, long-standing struggle within Sunni and Shia Islam on the streets of Baghdad–neither of which pose a `continuing threat’ to the United States.
(9) Public Law 107-243 clearly reflected the President’s policies of preemption and unilateralism that have left the United States with an open-ended and ill-defined occupation of a country in the middle of a civil war.
(10) The President’s policies of preemption and unilateralism that led the United States into Iraq now leave the United States with no clear exit strategy from Iraq.
(11) The escalation of the use of military force in Iraq continues the retreat from long-held United States policies of diplomacy, deterrence, and containment.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that–
(1) Congress should vote on a new authorization for use of force resolution that–
(A) reflects the current situation in Iraq;
(B) abandons the Bush Doctrine of preemption and unilateralism; and
(C) realigns United States policy with its long-held engagement priorities of diplomacy, deterrence, and containment;
(2) the United States should set up a quick-reaction United States military force with an over-the-horizon presence in the region to reply as needed to imminent safety degree threats in the Middle East;
(3) the United States should enhance and heighten diplomatic relations that will supply the proper external environment and support for the difficult internal steps that the Government of Iraq should take to promote national reconciliation;
(4) the United States should increase efforts to engage all neighboring countries and the League of Arab States in promoting stability in Iraq;
(5) the United States should preserve its commitment to continue to supply humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq;
(6) the United States should redirect diplomatic, economic, and military support to Afghanistan, where the Taliban continues to destabilize the region; and
(7) the United States should aggressively pursue Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1292:
First I want to point out the obvious that that bill is dead, as no action has been taken on that bill since it’s birth on 3/1/2007 and furthermore not one singled-out House member has stood up to co-sponsor that bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01292:@@@X
From what I have seen that is the most logical and total writing from the left, whether be it from an organization, an individual’s opinion, or a bill drafted for Congress.
This bill brings up what too many of us, on all sides, have stopped talking approximately, that that was a preemptive war. That the weapons of mass desruction argument and the link to 9/11 were a fallacy, “The justifications cited by the President for using military force against Iraq–that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had urls to al Qaeda–have not, to term, been proven right.” that bill additionally is truthful in that it is willing to state that we have been fed reason after reason for a continuation for the war after the 9/11 and WMD argument fell apart, “The justifications cited by the President for using military force against Iraq have shifted dramatically since Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), from combating the threat that Saddam Hussein allegedly posed to the United States, to establishing an Iraqi democracy, and to a larger vision of Middle Eastern democracy.”
that bill additionally is very clear in that it shows that we were ill prepared and did not do our homework before we went into Iraq. that is shown in the fact that we “went to war against Iraq in March 2003 without clearly defined political and military goals.” It is crucial to look back to the beginning of that quagmire whether we are too understand why we are in our current state of affairs. However, neither major party wants us too look back to what really happened considering Republicans do not want the WMD argument too reappear and Democrats want us to forget that so many of them supported the war just a few years ago.
This bill goes beyond being a thought of the left, in that it shows that whether we were prepared and would have gone in with decent troops and a well thought out plan we would have never needed a surge or such a lengthy continuation: “the United States went to war against Iraq without the troop levels or strategy needed to secure a post-invasion Iraq…. Ignoring the advice of United States military leaders and experts, the President sent United States troops into war against Iraq without sufficient levels needed for post-conflict success and without sufficient armor and related equipment, and has used the United States military in such a way that nowadays it is straining under the weight of the war.”
This bill directly references the fact that we are no longer in a direct conventional war but are now instead involved in a sectarian civil war. that is shown in: “Currently, United States troops are not facing a military force or direct threat to the United States in Iraq, rather they are facing both a Sunni insurgency against the United States occupation of Iraq and a violent, long-standing struggle amidst Sunni and Shia Islam on the streets of Baghdad–neither of which pose a `continuing threat’ to the United States.”
Unlike many gutless wonders in the Democratic Party that bill directly references the fact that Bush has already said that that war is not going to end under his administration and actually could be never ending, shown in: ” The President’s policies of preemption and unilateralism that led the United States into Iraq now leave the United States with no clear exit strategy from Iraq.”
This bill is particularly interesting in that it repeals the original authorization, a strange concept that I personally have yet to see in not only any other Congressional bill but in any other writing altogether.
Even increasingly sensible the bill states that, “Congress should vote on a new authorization for use of force resolution that–
(A) reflects the current situation in Iraq;
(B) abandons the Bush Doctrine of preemption and unilateralism; and
(C) realigns United States policy with its long-held engagement priorities of diplomacy, deterrence, and containment.”
This is basically a do-over. So why don’t Democrats support that? Is it that they are afraid that they would be so wimpy that they would form the same mistake that they did before?
It is sad, it is pathetic that not one damn Democrat in the House is willing to co-sponsor that bill. that bill represents the most logical, factual and honest detail I have seen.
I am particularly ashamed that Dennis Kucinich did not co-sponsor that bill of all citizens. poor Dennis not good.
I support that bill to such a degree that I am actually going to link to Representative John B Larson’s website. Those of you who have read my preceding pieces and know how much I despise Democrats should understand what that means in how much I support that bill that I am willing to link a Democrat’s website to one of my articles.
As I link that uhhhh Democrats uhhhh website I additionally must have to say how ashamed I am of many other progressive House Democrats, whom I normally support, for not sponsoring that bill, they are: John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Lynn Woolsey, Jim McDermott.
Original post by Richard Rhodes
Leave a Reply
