Bill Richardson Says Congress Shouldn't Wait Until Sept.-Oct. to End the Occupation

[bigtree]

Email from the Richardson campaign:


It's time every single member of Congress caught on to two things: 1) the Bush Administration will not end this war until they are forced to, and 2) it is wrong to wait until September or October to stop the killing.

Congress has the power to stand up to Bush and end this war right now -- before the summer break.

Congress can pass a resolution de-authorizing the Iraq war TODAY and call on the President to redeploy ALL of our troops in six months.

Article 1 of the US Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the right to declare war. And the War Powers Act specifies that the President may not continue a war without Congressional authorization. In 2002 Congress passed a resolution authorizing the Iraq war because the administration claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Queda.

Saddam is dead. There never were any WMDs or ties to Al Queda. The basis for the 2002 war authorization is gone.

If Congress passes a resolution de-authorizing the war, the President has no legal authority to continue. De-authorization cannot be vetoed, and it would legally require Bush to begin bringing the troops home. If the President stalled on redeployment, Congress could pass funding legislation requiring him to withdraw.

Congress lost an opportunity last month when it caved before the administration and passed an Iraq war spending bill without a timetable for withdrawal. But it is not too late. If Congress de-authorizes the war before the summer recess, our troops could be home in six months.

The American people elected Democrats last November to end Bush's war. It is time for Congress to do what it was elected to do. It is time to stop deferring to a stubborn President who persists in a failed policy.

It is time to stop the killing and start a new diplomatic process. Call on Congress to de-authorize this war BEFORE their summer break. Sign the petition.
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/deauthorizenow

Some Democrats say wait -- wait for the fifth anniversary of the original war authorization, wait for General Petraeus's report on the effects of the escalation, wait for George Bush to see the light. Well, I don't buy any of it. The time for waiting is over. People are dying every day. If Congress doesn't act before they leave for the summer, the only thing that will change between now and the end of the year is the body count.

I served in Congress for 14 years and I know that Congress has the power to act, and I know from experience that when the people demand it, Congress will respond.

Today I am asking you to join me in a grassroots campaign to force Bush to end this war.

Click here to sign the petition calling on Congress to de-authorize the war before the summer break and start bringing our troops home.
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/deauthorizenow

We can use the leverage of our complete withdrawal to bring the warring factions to the negotiating table. Our continued presence in Iraq enables the factions to delay the necessary compromises and fuels the insurgency by feeding the belief held by most Iraqis that we are in Iraq to occupy their country indefinitely and plunder their oil. That is why we must remove ALL the troops as soon as possible. I have a plan for rebuilding stability in a post-war Iraq, but Congress must take the first step.

We have a responsibility to ourselves and to the Iraqis to embrace a new strategy of military disengagement and diplomatic re-engagement. We owe it ourselves and the Iraqis to end this war now.

The President won't do it. Congress must.


Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

[babylonsister]

1. Richardson is totally right about this, but will anyone listen?

Actually, they all KNOW what won't happen in September. What are they waiting for?

[ValiantBlue]

2. It is a calculated risk

We all knew that waiting till September is unrealistic, and it is highly unlikely a sharp change for the better will occur in a few months in Iraq.

The Democrats are taking a calculated risk with the Presidency on the line. Either it could help them gain the Presidency, or it could cost them the Presidency. In my opinion I would say many voters would not be happy if the Iraq conflict has not been ended by election day. I think this could come back to haunt the Democrats. I hope I am wrong with my grim view. :(

[babylonsister]

4. I really wish their moral code trumped their political aspirations. I wish

they'd consider doing the right thing instead of what's politically expedient. :(

[bigtree]

5. well, I imagine this won't be the only call to action from candidates and other legislators

I personally expect Congress to come back no later than July and confront Bush again with timetable legislation. I've heard Democrats like Dodd say they intend to seek legislative remedies and rebukes this summer, so . . .

[Raven]

3. This makes perfect sense to me. Let the folks who voted to

authorize this war and now say they made a mistake, vote to de-authorize it and correct their mistake. Why not? What's keeping Congress from doing this?

[karynnj]

6. There are not 67 votes for this now - so no, it can't be done now

Richardson knows this and is playing politics with it.

[Raven]

7. Playing politics or putting the pressure on? How else are

you going to get the votes?

[karynnj]

17. who is he putting pressure on?

This is a fund raising letter sent to Democrats. He is mainly bashing Senators who have been working to get us out at a point that he was not on board.

[bigtree]

22. He's challenging them to vote for 'de-authorization', which some legislators have planned

and which course some may disagree.

I'm not crazy about the implication that Democrats aren't being forceful enough. I think their opposition so far has been in the realm of the possible, if not ultimately effective. But, this is a specific strategy which I think deserves an airing, and if our majority agrees, would be followed by specific actions of accountability which haven't been broached by their efforts to date.

It's, perhaps, easy for Richardson to stand on the outside and demand they act, but it's not outside of their ability to follow the route he describes. I welcome the pressure he's exerting for his specific proposal. It deserves consideration, as some in Congress have already said they intend to press for that course from within this summer.

[mmonk]

8. All it would require is for democrats to vote as a group.

Playing politics is sending funding bills to be vetoed and saying only the republicans are prolonging the war.

[bigtree]

10. I don't think it's politics to point out that the majority of Democrats are prepared and willing

to vote for legislation containing an exit date TODAY, and that the majority of republicans (including their Bush) are still standing in the way of that.

[mmonk]

13. If it's a moral imperative, they should do as Richardson says

and pass a resolution by simple majority that de-authorizes the war. Hanging on with the occupation just to show who supports it or to try and get enough votes from republicans to implement a plan with timetables to weaken the president legislatively (which may or may not happen, but would look good politically) lacks a certain moral clarity. The longer this goes on, the more chance at tragedy or the risks of political failure when they could have acted. Hopefully, everything will work out but so many years of strategy vs the welfare of this nation wears on me.

[bigtree]

14. politics is wearying

but I think there's too much of an expectation that our party can somehow dictate action, given the present balance of power. The fact that there is such an effective opposition is a testament to the institution's regard of minority rights and the levers provided to the minority to resist being overwhelmed by the party in the majority. There's nothing more pernicious in play here than the exercise of our democracy by both parties, which isn't perfect, or always accommodating, but does provide avenues for action which can succeed as much as the necessary amount of influence and pressure can be brought to bear on those in opposition to our proposals or initiatives.

I take no comfort in the obstruction from the republican minority, except that it reflects the reality of our deliberative system of governance rather than a kind of dictatorship where the views of the majority are handed down without mechanisms for dissent. We need to just keep pressing forward with our appeals and demands and continue hope that our efforts translate into action; either with the particular legislation, or toward a buttressing of our numbers in the next election to better effect and advance our initiatives.

[karynnj]

18. which they have been doing

[bigtree]

9. In our political system it makes perfect sense to press for what we want

against odds.

There will be a bill introduced which addresses the authorization. It may or may not have 67 votes, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be presented and voted on; hopefully passing it on to Bush's desk. That's what our political system provides for. It's politics, but it isn't necessarily 'playing' when our legislators exercise that responsibility.

Who knows what the political landscape regarding Iraq will be a month from now . . . two months?

Democrats have stated that they still intend to press forward and pass legislation containing timetables, over and over, until Bush and his republican enablers relent. I think we should keep the pressure on and not shy away from passing legislation just because it could be rejected by the White House. That's politics, but that's also the way our political system works. Nothing is going to be accomplished by our legislators sitting on their hands. If Democrats can manage to pass such a bill out of Congress it will certainly be an important and necessary endeavor.

[Raven]

11. Exactly! It seems so simple to me that I'm beginning to

wonder whether the Dems really want to end this war. Are they going through the motions just to appease the voters? Are they afraid of a bloodbath over there and ,if there is one, being blamed for it? I just don't understand what's going on with this!

[bigtree]

12. They are in recess

they've promised to come back and press Bush with timetable legislation and other pledged initiatives from different members.

[karynnj]

16. I completely agree - just as I though Kerry/Feingold

which clearly never had a chance was very necessary and the right thing to do. What I was commenting on was that it was written as something that could succeed now. That was why I said Riohardson was playing politics and he is. I support everything Kerry, feingold, Reid et al are doing to move this issue.

I am 100% behind all the efforts to push the issue in Congress. You are completely right that to do nothing when the policy is wrong would not be the right thing to do.

[Blackhatjack]

15. Edwards, Kucinich, & now Richardson, are pressuring on those in Senate/House to act to end war...

IMHO they are right, 100%.

The country is ready and sent the clear message in the 2006 Election results, and every major poll of public opinion since then.

Bush's approval rating has never been lower.

It would put every Republican on record as voting to prolong this war, the killing an dying, and the waste of billions of dollars --if they vote against the proposal. And that would be campaign fodder in 2008 when they run for reelection.

We already know the 'surge' will not work, and Iraqis will not meet benchmarks.

To allow this war to wallow on costing countless lives because Congress refuses to act is immoral. Just like Vietnam.

[karynnj]

19. Senators Kerry and Feingold were pushing this issue

for more than a year - well before Edwards and Richardson. There is NO ONE who has used stronger language than Senator Kerry on this - he has called the war immoral several times in the last year.

Do you honestly think that Richardson or Edwards have done more?

[Blackhatjack]

23. I would say that all of these named are worthy of praise for trying to end this war...

I did not try to set up a rating system of who I think has done more, as your question would require.

My primary focus was on those 'outside' the House/Senate, and then I added Kucinich since I know every time I mention anyone speaking out against the war a Kucinich supporter will appear.

I certainly do not think any of those named are saying these things for the purely political reason of getting votes. I think they are saying these things because it is the right thing to do, period. And for that reason I do not believe we need to stratify the list of names and assign them approval ratings as to who has done the best job of 'seeking the end of this war.' THis is one issue we all need to stand together on.

[spanone]

Unfortunately Mr. Richardson, the killing will not stop in September.

It will not stop for years.

[dkofos]

20. I doubt anything will come of it.

Not with the lack of leadership in congress.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

21. Ahem -- Pelosi? Reid? Are you listening?