Democrats To Propose Legislation Limiting Scope Of Mission In Iraq
And by “limiting” I mean they’re trying to dictate to the military which specific tribe of Islamic zealots they can attack.
WASHINGTON - Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.
While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.
The officials, Democratic aides and others familiar with private discussions, spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the effort. They added, though, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.
The plan is to attempt to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation that scheduled to be on the Senate floor next week and the week following.
The bolded statement is interesting in that it highlights the continued disconnect from the realities of Iraq by Democrats.
How can anyone who isn’t blinded by pure partisan hatred think it’s a good idea to narrow the scope of the authorization for war in Iraq to allow our troops only to one specific terror group. What happens if the Mahdi Army unleashes a barrage of mortar fire? Are our troops supposed to simply retreat? What if that same groups overruns Iraqi forces and threatens to topple the Iraqi government? Are our troops to stand by and watch what they’ve fought and died get destroyed all because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wanted to stick it to Bush?
What if our troops or Iraqis are attacked by one of the dozen or so other terror groups aside from al Qaeda known to operate in Iraq? Contrary to popular liberal opinion, the war on terror does not begin and end with al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
And besides, is it even constitutional for Congress to try and dictate the rules of engagement to the President and the military in this fashion? It seems to me that Congress’ constitutional duties with regard to war are fairly limited. They authorize it and de-authorize it, and they fund it. That’s it. I don’t think it’s wise to send our troops put our troops in harms way while telling them “You can attack these people who are trying to kill you, but not these people who are trying to kill you.”
Regardless, this isn’t likely to pass. With Lieberman putting his foot down and Sen. Johnson from SD out for the foreseeable future as he convalesces the Dems don’t even have a simple majority in the Senate on these sorts of issues, let alone the 60 votes it would take to invoke cloture or the 2/3’s it would take to override the President’s inevitable veto.
So, really, this is just an exercise in futility. Yet another way for the Democrats to undermine the mission in Iraq and demoralize the public while not really accomplishing anything substantial at all.
Hungry Bear
sanity
dating services
robert108
FlyOnTheWall
jimmypop
