Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

Senator Kennedy introduced this legislation that restricts Bush's authority to send additional troops or spend additional monies on an escalation until Congress approves his plan.  I've included his remarks in the extended entry.

Today I am introducing legislation to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq.  My bill will say that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation, unless and until Congress approves the President's plan.

My proposal will not diminish our support for the forces we already have in Iraq.  We will continue to do everything we can to make sure they have all the support they truly need.  Even more important, we will continue to do all we can to bring them safely home.  The best immediate way to support our troops is by refusing to inject more and more of them into the cauldron of a civil war that can be resolved only by the people and government of Iraq.

This bill will give all Americans - from Maine to Florida to California to Alaska and Hawaii - an opportunity to hold the President accountable for his actions.  The President's speech must be the beginning - not the end - of a new national discussion of our policy in Iraq.  Congress must have a genuine debate over the wisdom of the President's plan. Let us hear the arguments for it and against it.  Then let us vote on it in the light of day.  Let the American people hear - yes or no - where their elected representatives stand on one of the greatest challenges of our time.

Until now, a rubber stamp Republican Congress has refused to hold the White House accountable on Iraq.  But the November election has dramatically changed all that. Over the past two years, Democrats reached for their roots as true members of our Party.  We listened to the hopes and dreams of everyday Americans.  We rejected the politics of fear and division.  We embraced a vision of hope and shared purpose.  And the American people voted for change.

Many of us felt the authorization to go to war was a grave mistake at the time.  I've said that my vote against the war in Iraq is the best vote I've cast in my 44 years in the United States Senate.

But no matter what any of us thought then, the Iraq War resolution is obviously obsolete today.  It authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction.  But there were no WMDs to destroy.  It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein.  But today, Saddam is no more.  It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda.  But there was no alliance.

The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress.  President Bush should not be permitted to escalate the war further, and send an even larger number of our troops into harm's way, without a clear and specific new authorization from Congress.

Our history makes clear that a new escalation in our forces will not advance our national security.  It will not move Iraq toward self-government, and it will needlessly endanger our troops by injecting more of them into the middle of a civil war.

... Comparisons from history resonate painfully in today's debate on Iraq.  In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy.  The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each new escalation in Vietnam would be the last.  Instead, each one led only to the next.

There was no military solution to that war.  But we kept trying to find one anyway.  In the end, 58,000 Americans died in the search for it.

Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.

As with Vietnam, the only rational solution to the crisis is political, not military.  Injecting more troops into a civil war is not the answer. Our men and women in uniform cannot force the Iraqi people to reconcile their differences.

The President may deny the plain truth.  But the truth speaks loudly and tragically.  Congress must no longer follow him deeper into the quagmire in Iraq.

Tags: George Bush, Iraq, Ted Kennedy (all tags)

Comments

18 Comments

Re: Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

Good for the Tedster!

We need to force the administration to justify itself completely to Congress and the public. The Bush Op-Ed in the WSJ coupled with his mail stealing signing statement indicate the administration has not returned to reality yet. It's long past time for some oversight of this rogue administration.

by smacfarl 2007-01-09 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

awesome... don't fund more ...

by TarHeel 2007-01-09 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

It's really too bad the "anti-war" Obama chose not to do this.  It would have been a very strong opening salvo should he decide to run for president.  Instead of leading, he's going to follow.  I wonder if he'll even vote for it.

by Vox Populi 2007-01-09 06:11AM | 0 recs
Will Ted put Harry on the spot?

Thanks to Uncle Harry's accelerated work schedule, there will be no shortage of chances for Ted to offer his bill as a nongermane amendment.

(Time is clearly of the essence if the surge is to be stymied.)

What does Harry do then?

According to the Times today,

The Kennedy plan is intended to provide Democrats with a road map for how to proceed in Iraq. Mr. Kennedy, as he begins his 45th year in the Senate, recalled that Congress interceded during conflicts in Vietnam and Lebanon, and he said Democrats should not hesitate to do so in Iraq.

The new House speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, has similarly suggested that Democrats consider blocking financing for a troop increase, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, vowed Monday "to take a look at it."


I sense a lack of enthusiasm.

At that point, he could move to table the Kennedy amendment; or let it be voted on.

Either way, it's going to get killed (unless things have gone much worse in Iraq in the meantime). And Harry won't appreciate having been put on the spot.

(Not that Ted need worry about that. Much.)

by skeptic06 2007-01-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
read the bill

very logical.. hard to imagine many dems would not vote for it..

the bill makes total sense.  whether it is legally binding is another question.

by TarHeel 2007-01-09 06:36AM | 0 recs
I had

I'm not clear on the legalities - certainly, presidents of both stripes have maintained that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was unconstitutional.

But my sense from the CRS material I linked in my piece yesterday is that appropriations-based limitations on the military engagements have been abided by.

(Bush, as we know, is a law unto himself, though.)

My point was about the politics: with his proposal, Bush has surged Iraq up the Congressional agenda, and Harry's quote above was vehemently noncommittal.

My guess is that he wants to pick his own time and pretext for provoking a confrontation with Bush over Iraq, and will not appreciate Ted forcing his hand.

(He'd be looking for some help from events - a big loss of US troops (cf, the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983), say, or a step-change fubar with the Iraqi government.)

But - Ted can almost certainly get it his bill to the floor via a nongermane amendment; whatever it said, it would be spun as inviting a vote of no confidence in Bush's Iraq policy, and its supporters as peaceniks.

I'd say that, without an intervening disaster, most Dems would treat it like the Feingold censure res and stay well away.

by skeptic06 2007-01-09 07:50AM | 0 recs
Further thought

If Ted does offer his bill as a nongermane amendment, Harry has a further option (to those of a MTT or allowing a vote): he could offer an amendment defanging it.

Make it a sense of the Senate; place conditions on its operation that won't be met anytime soon. That sort of thing.

That way, he keeps agenda control: he gets Dem senators to unite (he hopes!) behind a leadership proposal (of sorts) without committing themselves or the party to anything in particular.

by skeptic06 2007-01-09 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

Nice gesture, but Junior will veto it, issue a signing statement saying he'll ignore it, tear it up and line his bird cage with it.

Sigh.

by Bee 2007-01-09 06:33AM | 0 recs
Republicans opposing the escalation

Walking past my TV with C-Span a few days ago I saw a slender gray haired gentleman tearing into the war on Iraq and how the troops should be brought home as soon as possible.  Wow, I thought, Harry Reid has really become a fireball!

Then the name appeared on the bottom of the C-Span screen:  Ron Paul, R, Texas 14, Victoria.

Everything is different now.  The Dems have nothing to fear from opposing escalation--it is the Republicans who are terrified of supporting it.  As more and more Republicans--and very conservative Republicans from conservative districts --oppose the surge, it is going to put tremendous pressure on the Lieberman-type Dems.  Any such Dem senators must be feeling very lonely after the Republican senators met with Bush and said they would not support it.  It is going to be very interesting watching the Lieberman-types twisting in the wind worrying about the Republicans try to outflank them on opposing escalation.

by bobbles 2007-01-09 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans opposing the escalation

Well, Paul is really a Libertarian and actually voted against the war in the first place, but it's nice to see at least one Republican who gets it.

by TheUnknown285 2007-01-09 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

Yes sure it would be vetoed, but it's good to get all those GOP Senators on record as still supporting this failed leader and his failed War.

And I really doubt at all there would be any fallout from Dems making a stand on the issue. The public wants out. And GOPer are just about spent trying to demonize Dems on the war. It's just not working for them any longer.

by padcrasher 2007-01-09 06:58AM | 0 recs
Well done Teddy

These things make a difference

by Alice Marshall 2007-01-09 06:59AM | 0 recs
Anybody Got The Bill #?

I'm gonna make harassing Russ, Herb and Tammy on behalf of this bill my first bit of activism this year.  If/when a bill number/thomas link becomes available, I'd appreciate a heads up.

by hoose 2007-01-09 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

Nice, but what is the chance that Bush will sign this bill?

by gobacktotexas 2007-01-09 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

This is good stuff. I have to say, the Democrats' opposition to the escalation is much better than I expected right out of the gate. Only the pundit-show-addled Joe Biden has been a significant liability so far. Especially considering that Joe Lieberman isn't a Democrat anymore.

It's so nice that Joe Lieberman isn't a Democrat.

by BriVT 2007-01-09 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

C-Span will carry Kennedy's National Press Club appearance today at 1 pm. He will speak on Iraq and Health Care. These NPC programs are almost always repeated at intervals on following days.

by Books Alive 2007-01-09 07:32AM | 0 recs
A Dem with Spine

Good for you, Matt, and good for you, Ted Kennedy ! Let's rally the opposition. Even if criminal in the White House goes ahead with this, it's important the U.S. knows and he knows, he's utterly alone. And the Repugs need to feel what a liability Iraq is, and that is their war.

by cmpnwtr 2007-01-09 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Ted Kennedy Introduces Bill to Stop the Surge

R.E.S.P.E.C.T. -
I urge you to check out DailyKOS for two postings of a kind we have rarely seen. Dem elites starting a dialogue - with us (the people). They obviously believe we're more than the "loony left". Let's show them they're right by responding in equally respectful tones, whatever our opinions might be. "New direction..." They are listening.

Sen. Edward Kennedy - "Escalation: It's Not Up To Him".
No wishy-washy issue blurring. Note that he posted before he spoke at the Press Club. He said
 precisely what he intended to do and, we learned later, he actually did it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/9/1 1283/45767

Sen. Richard Durbin - "Help Me Set The Senate's Agenda".
He says, essentially, "Here are the options I see. What's important to you?  what do you think?"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1 /9/121441/4634

by Sweet Sue 2007-01-09 11:41AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------