Larson: Strip Bush of his war power to wage war


WASHINGTON- Today, Congressman John B. Larson (CT-1) issued the following statement regarding legislation introduced by Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton and Senator Robert Byrd yesterday that would revoke the President’s authority to wage war:

“I am pleased that my colleagues in the Senate have raised the issue of revoking President Bush’s authority to wage war.  The President callously and carelessly entered this war.  Clearly, things have gotten worse and not better. We cannot afford to have a President that continues to abuse his authority and not listen to the Congress or the will of the American people.  Taking this action would be another important step to keep the pressure on the President.   Congress also needs to look to address the Congressional War Powers Act to ensure that this kind of an abuse of power never occurs again.  In March, I introduced similar legislation in the House and hope that we can work together to take this critical step that can aid in ending this war.”



Filed under Congress, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, John Larson, Politics, President Bush, Robert Byrd, war, war powers

18 responses to “Larson: Strip Bush of his war power to wage war

  1. Joe Visconti

    Dear John Larson
    1. How much have your supporters at United Technologies made off this war?
    2.What will of the people John, the ones that voted him in again or the ones you think voted you and yours in?
    3.If you want to surrender go ahead, if you want the President to surrender, you don’t have overidding veto power and will just have to keep issueing press releases like Jodi Rell.

  2. Joe Visconti

    Rick, The fights over here, Did you get bogged down in the skateboard post?

    Congress can make all the laws they want, they have to go to the Executive for approval. The USA is not led as West Hartford with a Town Manager form of Government. If the congress doesn’t appropriate and approve the money for more war/security then it’s time for For profit entities like Exxon Mobil to hire Blackwater, do you know who they are? Then Blackwater will just pay our volunteer armed forces more than Uncle Sam with better health bennies too. Now thats Freedom without the need for democracy.

  3. turtle

    “Now thats Freedom without the need for democracy.”

    I take it Joe Visconti is a member of the 28%.

  4. Joe Visconti


  5. Joe Visconti

    It doesn’t matter what the polls say, he isn’t running in 08 and the Dems don’t have the juice to impeach, now that’s democracy in action.

  6. turtle

    You missed my point entirely.

  7. turtle

    “Blackwater, do you know who they are?”

    Yes, I’ve seen the documentary Iraq for Sale. Have you?

  8. Joe Visconti

    So you know that Exxon Mobil and others will have every right to increase the expansion of Blackwater globaly if they are left hanging out to dry by the US Military? The USA will not be allowed to limit or interfere with this private army, especially as it sets up off shore, especially if the US does not stay in the Middle East. Gossip says they will headquarter in Dubai near Haliburton. Think the UN can help? No need for our boys to die for oil anymore. Is this what the anti war movement wants?

  9. turtle

    The US military’s allegiance is to the Constitution, not to ExxonMobil. (Maybe the West Hartford public schools aren’t as good as I thought.)

    “Gossip says they will headquarter in Dubai near Haliburton.” Intriguing. Where did you hear that?

  10. Joe Visconti

    Now you misunderstood, of course the US Military has allegiance only to the US, but if US policy says adios to IRAQ then, then, then Exxon ETAL will face a strategic dilema. Enter Blackwater or some other Non National Military Wackos. Security is the Ultimate issue when it comes to Oil Production and distribution.

  11. Osemasterofdoom

    I can only assume from this thread that we won’t be seeing Joe joining the West Hartford Peaceniks in the Center on Saturday mornings

  12. turtle

    JV, I didn’t misunderstand. This argument that the US must not “surrender” (to who, exactly?) because the oil companies will then deploy a private army is a new one on me. But you might want to remind the administration of the necessity of safeguarding oil in case that angle hasn’t entered into deliberations on how to conduct the withdrawal.

    Anyway, it’s needless to react to what the “anti war movement wants”. If you recall, the enemy is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the invasion, but it is now. You may also recall that Osama bin Laden, still at large (if alive) after five years of Republican rule, is a Sunni, and that al Qaeda is largely a Sunni organization. There are many reasons why the US should end its occupation; one reason is to let the Shi’a and the Kurds finish off Al Qaeda in Iraq.

    The Bush administration has exacerbated the threat of terrorism by its feckless misadventure in Iraq and its neglect of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It has alienated our allies and emboldened our enemies. It is responsible for massive death and destruction and has dragged the United States into disrepute.

    Let’s not forget who it was that brought us to this pass. With the exception of Ron Paul, and despite the cries of “Ronald Reagan’s my Daddy”, every candidate at the last Republican debate has shilled for and supported George W. Bush and his administration. These men should be rejected outright if America is to get on with the serious business of fighting terrorism.

  13. Joe Visconti

    Yeah and if we got our ECS we wouldn’t have high taxes.
    Lamont lost right here in CT, which shows how much CT want’s to end the war/occupation.
    There is nothing the Dems , Hillary or her husband (swore allegience to the Brotherhood of Bonesman with W) can do.

  14. R. Holland

    You all seem to miss the point. In my opinion the Iraq struggle is now both about splitting the oil revenues (from lease agreements from competing oil distribution companies) equitably (the Kurds have taken a time out to think about it as the Kurd question is of making the choice between independence or a piece of the oil action) and the US and most Iraq citizens interest in making sure oil revenues, regardless of which Iraq faction recieves a portion of them doesn’t upstream the money to radical elements.

    In the middle of all this is injected suicide bombers making sure their sponsors are not forgotten at the oil table. Sort of a pay up or I’ll continue to blow myself (or the truly oppressed and abused among them) and you up.

    Pull out? Hardly. Sheesh.

  15. turtle

    So, do you expect this happy resolution to be reached before or after the Iraqi government’s two-month vacation?

  16. Joe Visconti

    Then why the Suicide Bombers on 9/11?, Think Suicide bombers blow themselves up for different reasons?
    One commonality between Uncle Al ( keda, not Gore) Jihadists and Suicide Inc. in Iraq is???

  17. Art Halloran

    Interesting blog and interesting topic. I commend people such as turtle and R. Holland for their intellectually stimulating debate. Then there is Joe Visconti. Is it just me or are others tired of his incoherent rantings and his obsession with seeing his name in print (approximately 1/3 of the comments on all topics are from Mr. Visconti). May I suggest someone send Mr. Visconti a life.

  18. Joe Visconti

    Hey Art, tolerate it.
    But I do commend you for using your real name, now thats a rant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s