except maybe my keyboard.
[UPDATE 9-28-07: As Passed some improvements have been made. But the tactic of terminology on "terrorist organizations" (see Webb) in the context of continued stonewalling of investigations into the administrations tactics: "use of intelligence", "use of funds", "use of politics", not to mention any one's sovereignty.]
But I have read this on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and only found this on the evidence against.
Earlier I read this on Pelosi/centrist/Iraq
and only glanced at this on congress, foreign policy and our allies.
This about "feed and forage" and the war powers represents and requires a little more "hard work" and I don't know if it matters. I agree with the bottom line:
What is clear is that all this legal tap dancing gets us nowhere. To end the war, the Congress can do one of two things, or preferably both: it can repeal the Iraq AUMF, and/or it can refuse to fund the war. This sophistry from Democrats, politicians and legal scholars, does neither us nor our principles credit.
But to the Progressive Majority, or what ever number there are, it should be put in black and white:
THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT AUTHORIZATION FOR WAR PERIOD,
Let alone AS A FOREIGN POLICY
Unless there is something that makes this perfectly clear, this is a political football with a hair trigger, playing out on the world field, while making it clear would likely make it pointless. I hope that someone can sort out these play signals, but Do not punt congressional responsibility, and hopefully there will be 41 votes to take this ball away.
[TALKING POINTS MEMO Takes a little steam out of this but not necessarily my concern that there is something that can be read between the lines without having real dots to connect.]
[NEXT DAY UPDATE: The best spin on this? It was not a vote for war. but further reading is needed. ]
[10-9-07: "Kyle-Lieberman amendment passed" these words have now been spell checked and corrected]
No comments:
Post a Comment