Byrd, Clinton propose surrender legislation
posted at 10:14 pm on May 3, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Send ‘em a white feather. And stick a fork in Hillary!’s hawk credentials.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said in the Senate Thursday she and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq.
The bill will propose Oct. 11, 2007, as the expiration date for the congressional resolution that authorized President George W. Bush to use force in Iraq. That resolution was approved Oct. 11, 2002.
So, basically, five years and we’re out no matter what will follow in Iraq or what that will do to America’s place in the world. No matter that our exit under those conditions will have the terrorists crowing that they defeated us. No matter that Iran’s power as the next regional hegemon kicks up a few notches.
Byrd and Clinton are setting the stage for another veto, or a constitutional crisis if the veto is overridden.
For Hillary!, it’s a self-defeating move. She’s running from the war but for the office that prosecutes wars, and in drafting a bill that would remove the responsibility for the current war from her hoped-for term, she is actually setting herself up for a much bloodier and more dangerous war that will happen on her watch and will carry her own signature. She’s kicking the can down the road…to herself, if she wins in 08.
(h/t Weasel Zippers)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I think the Democrats need a new motto, something like…
or maybe…
or…
MoxArgon on May 3, 2007 at 10:19 PM
How about “For it…before we were against it!”
JetBoy on May 3, 2007 at 10:21 PM
If I left the comment I started to you’d just delete if for profanity so I won’t.
bdfaith on May 3, 2007 at 10:26 PM
You cannot “End” a war, except either by Victory or Defeat.
They choose Defeat.
Sounds un-American to me.
profitsbeard on May 3, 2007 at 10:27 PM
She must be scared of the nutroots giving their hearts and money to such military genii as Obama or Kucinich.
I really find it odd considering she will have to run as a moderate if she wins the Democrat nomination.
cmay on May 3, 2007 at 10:33 PM
I thought she planned to keep troops in Iraq, to fight al Qaeda.
amerpundit on May 3, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I actually heard a Dem strategist say “You win wars by defunding them.” He screeched it. The Republican strategist dropped his jaw, and was rendered speechless. I wish I could remember which channel that was and when. That would be great for the hotair archives.
CrimsonFisted on May 3, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Issue those two dolts battle dress uniforms, buy them airline tickets and send them to fight with their terrorist buddies. They’re both traitorous fools.
rplat on May 3, 2007 at 10:37 PM
If the Republicans don’t stand up to the Dems this time, and flood the airwaves with some very quotable quotes calling this surrender, and citing statistic after statistic that shows the progress we’ve made, then… then… uh… I guess nothing will have changed. I’ll just be even MORE pissed off when I vote for the !#@$#$@%$#% Republican candidate in 2008.
The majority – and I don’t just mean the Dems, I mean Congress – are choosing defeat. Bush called their bluff with the veto, and the Dems are doubling down figuring that Repubs will give in. And they probably will.
Laura on May 3, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Eck…Please don’t call her “Hillary!” The exclamations should only be used for Fred. ;o)
And my GOD what happened to the days when this country SHOT traitors??
tickleddragon on May 3, 2007 at 10:40 PM
The Democrats are defeatists and should be vigorously attacked as defeatists. If the Democrats succeed and the disasters happen in Iraq and eventually in this country that will, then the congressional Democrats can be held accountable. They are scum.
Phil Byler on May 3, 2007 at 10:40 PM
She is just trying to steal the perceived presidential spotlight from Obama and his recent increase in his personal security (USSS detail).
DCA on May 3, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Accountability is for Conservatives.
I want to see pollsters start asking Americans if they want Victory or Defeat.Not this “Do you want the troops home” crap. Who wouldn’t want the troops home? What a dumb question.
Iblis on May 3, 2007 at 10:53 PM
FILIBUSTER!!!
Maybe Tancredo can pass the time quoting from the ABSCAM transcripts.
common sensineer on May 3, 2007 at 10:53 PM
doubt this will get off the ground, Hillary’s pandering to the nuts
Defector01 on May 3, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Great Idea, and a great movie. The Four Feathers.
abinitioadinfinitum on May 3, 2007 at 10:55 PM
She sure is one screwed up b**ch.
auspatriotman on May 3, 2007 at 10:58 PM
F—ing Surrendercrats. The party of “Lose at all costs, no matter the cost!” The gift that keeps on giving when it comes to terrorist morale.
Will the military ever trust a Democrat again not to vote to send them off to war and then turn around and cut them off at the knees? Yes, our armed forces are supposed to be apolitical, but what do you do when you take an oath to defend this country “against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, and the Democrats look more like the latter every day?
ReubenJCogburn on May 3, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Oh, I would pay BIG to see that. :-)
Laura on May 3, 2007 at 11:00 PM
You’d need a Secret Service detail too, if you were running against the Clinton War Room.
ReubenJCogburn on May 3, 2007 at 11:01 PM
What I’d like to hear from President Bush, should this pass:
Farmer_Joe on May 3, 2007 at 11:01 PM
I believe you’re right, but why? Are there that many crazy far lefties,,, or is it that they scream so loud they sound bigger than they are?
4shoes on May 3, 2007 at 11:06 PM
It is truly frightening that these so-called leaders do not understand what they are proposing. Sometimes I wonder if they do understand, but just don’t care – they’re probably guiding the U.S. to exactly where they want it.
Stevel on May 3, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Someone should remind Her Thighness that today is her unbirthday as well…
unamused on May 3, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Really, is there anyone on the planet who cannot see through this woman’s ambitions? This isn’t about taking a moral stand on any position. This, is about an opportunist taking a position that she believes will better position her for a Presidential nomination. She’s far too stupid to understand she will never win. So, she’s sacrificing the sacred honor of our country for nothing more than political points. I frankly can’t think of anyone more deserving of going down in flames as this duplicitous bitch.
thedecider on May 4, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Hey its my birthday today ! (may 3rd)
But Id like to remind old senile Byrd that his Gulf of Tonkin vote got 500,000 GIs killed so by your own estimation Byrd you are far more evil that GW.
William Amos on May 4, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Obviously my profanity regarding Hil got caught up in the filter. I’m not surprised, yet, it expresses how I really feel about her.
thedecider on May 4, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Unfortunately there is no filibuster in the House. :-P
KSgop on May 4, 2007 at 12:16 AM
We should stay in Iraq for 30 years. It’s where we logistically need to be.
Perchant on May 4, 2007 at 12:30 AM
They only kick the can, not watch where it goes.
sMack on May 4, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Perhaps we can all bid on these
and send them off to the “Clinton-Byrd”
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on May 4, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Along with sending the white feathers we should send them this DVD
pabo on May 4, 2007 at 12:58 AM
I mentioned before that she’ll move waaay left ahead of the primaries, then waaaay to the middle to win the general. She knows that Mr. Bush will be there until Jan. ‘09, and that there aren’t enough votes to override a veto. This is all pandering to those nuts for the selection. She’s getting desperate, with Barack having overtaken her in the polls, and him now being the only other leftie candidate with a security detail.
Here’s hoping this nightmare will never materialize.
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Hillary won’t engage in war, unless it is executed in a location and against an enemy which is not in defense of the US, but is seen as “humanitarian” such as Kosovo-Bosnia was.
By the way, when will there be an exit strategy, and a timetable for exit, from that area?
It’s already been about 10 years.
Quagmire!
William
William2006 on May 4, 2007 at 1:14 AM
this is simple
Hillary is doing this but will vote to remove the limits that her friends in congress want to put on the president’s war
Defector01 on May 4, 2007 at 1:18 AM
*opening envelope*
And ladies and gentlemen… the winner of this month’s Al Qaeda “employee of the month” is…
…Harry Reid
*wild applause* *shouts* Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!…
Mojave Mark on May 4, 2007 at 1:44 AM
Cutting off her nose to spite her face………
Mallard T. Drake on May 4, 2007 at 1:47 AM
I can’t read her mind, but we know everything she does is to further her political ambitions, so yeah, this is just another political stunt.
What ever happened to the idea that you become a public servant in a certian capacity to serve the people, and not use that position solely as a stepping stone for higher office?
This woman is a complete sack of crap.
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Perhaps we should call it the “Victory For The Insurgents” bill.
Tantor on May 4, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Byrd can let Hillary use his KKK sheet as the surrender flag.
sdd on May 4, 2007 at 7:25 AM
It continues to be absolutely shameless how Shrillary will use our courageous military to further her political ambitions. She always was, and continues to be, garbage.
lynnv on May 4, 2007 at 7:43 AM
So what’s the number up to now …. Democrat Plan #20 for surrender in Iraq?
Defund the war,
set benchmarks,
impeach Bush,
set artificial timetables,
redeploy to friendly Arab states,
redeploy to Okinawa,
send more troops,
bring troops home soon,
bring troops home now,
bring all troops home by end of year,
bring troops home if benchmarks aren’t met,
don’t send troops unless their fully trained,
don’t send troops unless their fully supplied,
send diplomatic envoys to Damascus,
leave Iraq, send troops to Afghanistan,
leave Iraq, send troops to cleanup after Katrina,
call for a new direction in Iraq,
approve the surge Commander,
disapprove of the surge,
end president’s authority for the war in Iraq.
What next, shut down companies who supply food and water to our troops?
And the Democrats want to lead this country and protect us from our enemies?
What a joke.
fogw on May 4, 2007 at 9:09 AM
The democrat leaders that the American public has placed in power are obviously, to anyone watching, seditious traitors. Even openly and in public they are even seditious traitors, and the American public simply doesn’t seem to care…
Therefore, the American public deserves a democrat traitor President to go along with the rest of the traitors they we placed in Congress to “rule” over us. And from the pitiful display of GOP candidates, it looks inevitable. It should be an interesting, and frightening, next few years…
NRA4Freedom on May 4, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Bush administration needs a white feather also for giving in to Defeatocrat pressure and showing weakness to the Iranians by having talks with them. The Iranians repay our olive branch by Iran’s foreign minister walking out of Dinner on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The Iranians are playing the US and the world like a fiddle! We should talk with military power instead of cowing down to these terrorists!!
abinitioadinfinitum on May 4, 2007 at 9:17 AM
New Dhimmicrat Motto: “It is far better to rule a nation of cowards than have a strong foreign policy”
David on May 4, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Byrd & Clinton = Sheets & Shinola
Hening on May 4, 2007 at 10:01 AM
If this fails, Hillary and Byrd are going to offer a bill which suggests changing the past.
drjohn on May 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM
The quest for power and stupidity make strange bedfellows.
Would the last american please turn out the lights.
SPIFF1669 on May 4, 2007 at 10:42 AM
TRAITORS
Impeach anyone who votes for it.
ic1redeye on May 4, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Here’s the crazy thing about all this, and further proof that the Dems have been irretrievably co-opted by the nutroots:
As Lieberman pointed out, the surge bears a striking resemblance to what Democrats demanded for several years – send more troops, provide security. WHY aren’t the Dems stepping up, crowing about the successes, and taking credit?! In one swoop, they could take the credit, be seen as supporting the troops, and improve their national security creds.
It’s too late now to do it, of course… but they had a beautiful opportunity and completely blew it. BDS really is toxic.
Laura on May 4, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I think back to a Jeff Foxworthy line from a few years ago that went something like “If you can’t say something nice about someone, you’re probably talking about Hillary Clinton.”
conservativecaveman on May 4, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Constitutional law be damned! I’m Hillary Clinton and we’ll do it my way!
conservativecaveman on May 4, 2007 at 3:38 PM
First of all, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to “undeclare war.” Among the powers given to Congress is the power to DECLARE WAR. There is no power for Congress to DECLARE WAR IS OVER. This is a role implicit in the war powers given to the Commander-in-Chief, the President.
Second, it will be vetoed by Bush. Hell, it would be vetoed by ANY President because it is a direct assault on the powers of the Executive branch by Congress.
Third, I doubt that Congress would override the Veto.
Which means, this is nothing by Hillary WHORING herself to the nutroots. KKK Kleagle Robert “white nigger” Byrd has dementia if he thinks this will become law.
Vote Democrat, vote traitor.
georgej on May 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Comment pages: