Senators Byrd and Clinton plan to introduce legislation that would "end the authority for the war in Iraq" on October 11, 2007, the five year anniversary of the Iraq AUMF.
Says Byrd (via e-mail):
"The 2002 authorization to use force has run its course. It is time, past time, to decommission this authorization and retire it to the archives. If the President has more that he wants to do in Iraq, then he needs to make that case to Congress and to the American public," Byrd said in Senate debate today. "The President must redefine the goals and submit his plan to achieve them to a thorough and open debate in the Congress and throughout the country. That is the American way. Success will elude us without the support of the people whose sons and daughters are being asked to die in the sands of Iraq."
Clintons says:
"The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," said Senator Clinton on the Senate floor.
It's an interesting development, but does it really have any meaning? It doesn't seem likely that the Senators really believe Bush will come to them with new authorization request, admitting that he has failed thus far and needs to begin on a new course. And it is even more incredible to think that any new course from Bush would actually involve what the American people want, the troops out of Iraq within the next year.
What's more, does it mean that Byrd and Clinton will not vote for any funds authorizing the war after October 11, 2007? Because each funding bill for the Iraq war is, in effect, a reauthorization of the AUMF. If you are going to declare the war illegal as of then, you simply cannot provide continued funding for it. That's putting aside the obvious--this legislation is subject to a veto by Bush. The only thing not subject to a Bush veto would be no bill at all, presenting no more funding bills or timelines for him to veto.
It's an interesting sideshow to the Iraq debate, but it's hard to see how it really is going to achieve anything at all.
Comments are closed on this story.