Bill Richardson has a strong plan to end this war, bring ALL the troops home and start reconciliation in Iraq. But Congress must act now: de-authorize this war before the summer break, and bring all all the troops home.

I'm joining his call on Congress to end this war NOW. It is time to stand up to Bush now. And its time to bring all of our troops home. We should remove all of our troops for Iraq - any troops we leave behind will just become targets. And if congress de-authorizes the war before the summer recess, we could have ALL of our troops home in 6 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. Saddam is dead. There never were any WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. 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.

The time for waiting is over. People are dying every day. We cannot wait until this fall to start bringing our troops home. 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.

Congress has a public mandate and the Constitutional authority to end this war.

So again we the people of this UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, wants to know why this hasn't happen 4 years ago? After bush stated mission accomplish. the de-Authorization should of been done at that time we only lost about 200 brave troops. now we have more than 4000 dead,30,000 badly hurt and up 100,000 more with mental problems.

so anyone in congress that can explain to america why they have not done this....

Earth to Obama: There's not enough oil in Sudan or Congo to grease Dear Leader's mountain bike, much less appease his corporate handlers.

If war supporters actually cared about Iraqi post-natal life, they'd have joined the millions who opposed the war from the start on the ground that it would cost so many innocent lives. Only our deadenders are so detached from reality as to actually think that the Admin has the slightest regard for post-natal life anywhere, let alone for those swarthy, Unbelievers in I-Rack who are going to miss out on the Rapture and thus aren't really human anyway.

But of course fears of genocide aren't the only reason, or even the primary reason, for the US being in Iraq.

Obama is once again setting up a straw man to tear down.

In fact there were 23 reasons given in the Iraq war resolution, which passed the senate 77-23 with bipartisan support. I suggest Sen. Obama, and the reporters who repeat his every word, read the actual war resolution, the text of which is at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Earth to blinkin: The Bush administration has been leading the way to get the UN to do something about Sudan. We have 160,000 troops in Iraq now, we cannot put tens of thousands in Sudan or Chad. But we would support the UN with many troops. However, your favorite countries: Russia, China and France have been blocking all efforts in Sudan.
You folks say went into Iraq "unilaterally," but yet you want us to go into Sudan unilaterally. You folks say there is civil war in Iraq and we should get out, yet there is civil war in Sudan and you want us in.
And why isn't the UN, Russia, China and France wanting to step into Sudan or Congo?
Just last fall Barack advocated getting involved in Sudan (Darfur) to stop the genocide. Now, he is saying preventing genocide is not enough to get involved. Funny, that wasn't policy in Bosnia/Kosovo in 1990s, huh?
Hypocrites and BSers, that is what the Loony Left is all about.

Obama is correct. This is an evil administration who's only goal is to provide illegal stolen oil to Israel. That is why our troops are dying, to provide oil for Israel. Over 1 million barrels a week have been declared missing and stolen. Where is this oil? Cheney (our president) doesn't give a crap about Iraqis, Sudanese, even his own kids could kiss his butt given his options. This is about the oil. Those kids are dying for another country.

Actually, we already know what Sen. Obama thinks the US should do to end the genocide in Darfur. His op-ed in the Washington Post can be read at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600547.html

If you want a laugh, that is. Trouble is, the situation is too grave to advance such laughable non-solutions.

Obama advances 4 points:

1) the US "must help transform" the African police force to make it more effective. How is not mentioned.
2) the US must "pressure" Sudan.
3) the US must "pressure" "key nations".
4) the US must "place its weight" (guess he figured he'd already used "pressure" twice) behind economic sanctions.

Obama's gabfest has one chance of succeeding: if the warring sides die from
boredom after listening to his neverending piffle.

Now that we've all ignored RNC Stooge Bruce's bought and paid for comments:

I'm guessing that the Neocons in the Whitehouse would have no problem getting us involved in another civil war if they could find a way for them and their fatcat Republican friends to profit from the bloodshed.

John D:

As usual, you miss the point in your zeal to spout wingnut talking points. Obama's point was that if GWB thought that genocide was a valid reason for what amounted to "unilateral" intervention in Iraq (I know, I know, Latvia was there for while too), then it would be a basis for such intervention now.

I simply submit that the difference between Sudan and Iraq can be described in three letters. You make no effort to rebut this distinction, but instead move on to a wingnut rant against France.

---

Bruce: Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Seems to me that resolution was overwhelmingly about WMDs. I really loved the stuff about worrying about a "surprise attack" with WMDs. What a hoot! Corpses abound because of lies by the murderer you worship.

Senator Boy Wonder ought to ask the lady who is kicking his behind why her husband didn't send troops to Africa during all the civil wars in that occurred from 1993 - 2000. Instead the blue helmets weren't sent in and did nothing but rape children.

Obama neatly raises the problem of
genocide in Africa (see movie, "Hotel Rawanda") but then leaves the subject without any suggestion for addressing it.
What are his ideas? It's not enough to
continually criticize or raise recognized problems. Anyone can do that. How would you, Mr. Obama, address such crises as exist in Africa if you were president?

Obama neatly raises the problem of
genocide in Africa (see movie, "Hotel Rawanda") but then leaves the subject without any suggestion for addressing it.
What are his ideas? It's not enough to
continually criticize or raise recognized problems. Anyone can do that. How would you, Mr. Obama, address such crises as exist in Africa if you were president?

Blinkin, the "unilateral" intervention had to do with WMDs (and before you go spouting your Loony Left moveon.org talking points, practically all Dem senators and politicians spoke of them from the 1990s into 2003), terrorism, violating 18 UN resolutions, etc. The worry about genocide happening with us leaving is NOW, not 2003.

Speaking of that "unilateral" force, yes Latvia is still a part of it, as is England, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Poland and some others. More were there at one time too.

But as usual, you and your ilk avoid the questions:
1. If the U.S. should go into Sudan now because of genocide and go in there unilaterally as espoused by many on the Left including George Clooney and his friends, then why was it wrong to be in Iraq? (And Blinkin, Sudan has that three letter word too, shhhhh, it's O-I-L).
2. We went into Bosnia "unilaterally," so how does that differ than Iraq? (And that region has no O-I-L).
3. If Bosnia/Kosovo was a civil war, then why were we involved?
4. If you approved of Bosnia and Kosovo then why are you against Iraq? Is it because one was started by a Democratic senator while the other by a Republican?

You folks say there is civil war in Iraq and we should get out, yet there is civil war in Sudan and you want us in.

There is NOT a civil war in the Sudan. Arab militias are murdering a poor, defenseless people. You can't have a civil war when the people have no way to fight back. These are not issues to be taken lightly.

There IS civil war in Iraq because your beloved idiot waged war, invaded, and occupied a country that was not a threat to the US. These people had food, electricity, homes, jobs,and cities before the Cheney/Bush Royal Scam rolled into town. Now 2 million Iraqi's have had to flee their country and are living in refugee camps on the Syrian border. Just like the Sudanese refugees living on the border of Chad. With very little food and water. Obama is exactly right. The Bush/Cheney Royal Scam is pure hypocrasy. No one believes this OCCUPATION was an attempt to liberate the Iraqi people, only line the pockets of those who profit from war.

Hey Barack!
If our troops were in Africa,you'd say put them in Iraq and take out the other "Hussein"
Thank-God my child goes to a private school and you (CAN'T) show up giving sex education to 4-5 year olds with a thin lubricated membrane and a cucumber....
The next Prez...Puleezzze!

Paulo

In fact there were 23 reasons given in the Iraq war resolution,
So Bruce, how many of those reasons where lies? How many were fabricated?

Sex ed to 4-5 year-olds? Try laying off the conservative sex-ed conspiracies. Good luck with your kids & your ignorance about the importance of sex ed to children. I'm sure just saying no to them all thru college will do wonders for them once they hit puberty. Ready for the possibility of being called grandpa in a few years?

Apparently, Paulo doesn't like the idea of his 5 year old knowing what would constitute inappropriate touching by an adult. More power to the pedophiles!

Brilliant.

Of course, the measure Obama supported also included parental opt-outs, and had nothing to do with cucumbers.

But who cares about facts and the like? Or arming our children with knowledge to prevent them from being molested?

That sounds far too silly for me to get behind

Another example of Obama's foreign non-policy: the Jerusalem Post reports that (in answer to a questionnaire) Obama acknowledged that Iran getting nukes is "a risk we cannot take". Obama's solution to this grave problem? You guessed it--"pressure" (his favorite word), in this case "comprehensive" "diplomatic" pressure with a dependence on the United Nations.

This meaningless drivel isn't even a policy, let alone a bad policy.

Mikey,

I think Bruce, like most Americans, can provide the appropriate amount of sex education for their children.

Why is it for you folks on the left is if the gov't doesn't provide a program for an issue, you think the American public just does not have the ability to get the job done.

Instead the blue helmets weren't sent in and did nothing but rape children.

Posted by: Terry | July 20, 2007 7:01 PM

What the hell does this mean? When you idiot neo-cons can't defend your point you start making these kinds of indecipherable comments. What idiocy. You voted for this ass. YOU fix it.

Mrs. J, as usual you show your continued inability to know much. What Terry is referring to is that in Rwanda, several UN "peacekeepers" were arrested for raping women and children. The blue helmets is what UN peacekeepers wear.
So before you keep calling people names, learn something so you know what people are talking about!

Actually, a blinkin isn't far from the truth. Oil is the key difference between Iraq and those other African nations. As in, just imagine how high the price of oil will soar if and when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, leaving the Shia (influenced by Iran), the Sunni (influenced by al Qaeda) and the Kurds to go to war over political power, and thus, control of Iraq's abundant oil supply. Just imagine the headlines then. Millions more dead in Iraq, oil over $100 per barrel and gasoline at $5 per gallon or more. And don't think for a second that those possibilities have not played out in more than a few minds on both sides in Washington heading into the 2008 election.

Thank You John D.

Back to the Senator Boy Wonder's question: If US Troops good for Iraq, why not Africa?

The US Troops are in Iraq oover the issue of terrorism and WMDs. Remember, the vast consensus, both republican and democrat, and also internationally was that Saddam had WMDs. Thus the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003 was in response to a perceived "clear and present danger" to our country. The Sudan, as hidious as the situation is, poses no such threat.

If Senator Boy Wonder does not or cannot tell the difference between these two situations, he does not deserve to be president.