Warner Suggests Congress May Need To Vote On New Iraq Resolution If Civil War Grows
Warner Suggests Congress May Need To Vote On New Iraq Resolution If Civil War Grows
During today’s hearing, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA) said that Congress may have to pass a new resolution authorizing the continuing use of U.S. military force in Iraq if a civil war breaks out in that country:
I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do in the context of a situation if we’re faced with an all-out civil war, and whether we have to come back to the Congress to get further indication of support.
Congressional Quarterly (sub. req’d) adds, “If a civil war erupts between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq, he said, U.S. forces may be ill-trained to handle it and Congress might have to reconsider and potentially approve a new mission for the U.S. military.”
Full transcript:
WARNER: What is the mission of the United States if, under that resolution, that situation erupts into a civil war? What are the missions of our forces?
PACE: Sir, I believe we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact. I believe that U.S. Armed Forces today can continue to do what we’re doing, which is to provide enough security inside of Iraq for the Iraqi government to provide governance and economic opportunity for their citizens. The weight of that opportunity rests with the Iraqi people. We can provide support. We can help provide security. But they must now decide about their sectarian violence. Shia and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other. If they do that, and seize the opportunity that the international community has provided to them, then this will be what we wanted to be which is a success for ourselves and the Iraqi people. But the weight of that shift must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government.
WARNER: I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do in the context of the situation if we are faced with an all-out civil war. And whether have to come back to congress to get further indication of support.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
58 Responses to “Warner Suggests Congress May Need To Vote On New Iraq Resolution If Civil War Grows”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Declare victory and go home. Out NOW!!!
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:11 pm“If a civil war erupts between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq”
IF?????
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:13 pmGOP: Let’s see, some of us need to stand for election so perhaps we better start easing our way out of this mess that georgie got us into.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:16 pmSurrrrrrrre, like former Navy Secretary Mr. Foghorn Leghorn Warner will torpedo his Republican president.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:18 pmI think we have a right to simply know what’s really going on. Is that asking too much?
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:20 pmOr are w e gonna let Uncle Warner take care of that complicated stuff?
Warner is playing to the public he will follow Bush no matter what. Warner has defended Bush invasion and lies now it’s a stall for Nov. election. Warner should join Rummy in that nursing home he’s part of the memory loss group.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:22 pmNo shit, John, we have been trying to tell you this for three years.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:23 pmYa right….I’ll believe it when I see it, in a non election year.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:26 pmMost likely it will be a new vote, and the republicans will use it to show how the democrats are “soft on terror” and “soft on national defence”.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:27 pmSen. Warner needn’t bother. Bush will just throw up a middle finger, send Cheney to Congress to deliver a “F*ck you” and then continue to stay the course.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:30 pmHo Chi Minh
I echo those sentiments. Those troops are Waist Deep in the Big Sandbox with no lifeline offered by either party to get them out of that quagmire. The irony, if not the hypocrisy, is that senators like Warner are old enough to remember the debacle of Vietnam but choose to pretend that Vietnam never existed in the collective consciousness of the United States. The politicians in Congress should be forced to watch The Fog of War, in the hopes that they do not have to duplicate the mea culpa that Robert McNamara was forced to issue some thirty years after the Vietnam War ended.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:30 pmI take it this report is sincere and accurate (I neither saw the Committee meeting, nor generally trust to this “liberal” website’s reports)…
But on face value, it seems extraordinary.
In the fresh aftermath of the loss of a member’s nephew in Iraq, we should have the Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee of the U.S. Senate say…
I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do
…is extraordinary.
Stay tuned; sanity and Justice (belated) may prevail.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:32 pm#9, Krazny, yup, right on the money. You said it, so I don’t have to. Hey it’s just smart politics. If Democrats had any power they would schedule votes to make their bread and butter issues the topic of the day.
Question, this is my first visit to this site. Do they ever post anything critical of any Democrat in here, or is it just non stop bashing of conservatives? Because that would seem kind of silly.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:38 pmI supported the liberation of Iraq. But I don’t disagree with Sen. Warner here. We are not there to get in the middle of a civil war between Islamic sects. We have removed Saddam. We have given the Iraqi people every opportunity and assistance to create and sustain a democratic state. If (and this appears more likely with each passing week) they are incapable of living together in peace and running their own affairs in a peaceful, democratic, and civilized way, then we should reconsider our presence there. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink (To break out a cliche).
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:42 pmExtraordinary would have been, “Mr. President, before we go into Iraq, the Congress demands that you tell us your plan. How long, how much and when is their victory.”
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:43 pmNo one would expect a dog to give birth to ponies - so why does the Bush clan expect violence to give birth to peace?
Peace comes from peace, not bloodshed, violence, bombs and domination.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:49 pm….
…
Didn’t he read the Script??
Doesn’t he know that the GOP Congress exists only to Rubber Stamp this Adminstration?
“I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do”
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:49 pmMore Barking…
If (and this appears more likely with each passing week) they are incapable of living together in peace and running their own affairs in a peaceful, democratic, and civilized way, then we should reconsider our presence there. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink (To break out a cliche).
Comment by exley — August 3, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
Is there something the dictators of the Middle East know about managing its own people that we don’t? Maybe certain populations of people are not ready for Democracy. Maybe the Middle East is a steaming couldren of violence that has forever been unstable and needs to be ruled with an iron fist. Maybe there are plenty of other mean dictators out there we completely ignore. Just sayin’.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:51 pmNote: The US Circuit Court stuck it to Delay. The fox outfoxed his own self. His name stays on–almost a sure seat for the Dems.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:51 pmWow Exley you aren’t advocating cutting and running are you?
All kidding aside. Our troops performed extremely well in the initial phase of the Iraq war. They were able to enter Iraq, and remove Saddam in record time. However our troops, and really no military troops are meant to act as police officers. Historically unless you give the troops the military leeway to be brutal, they cannot function as police. I just hope, the Mr. Warner will be serious about examining this issue, and will not just rubberstamp the Bush agenda.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:53 pmI supported the liberation of Iraq.
We didn’t go there to liberate Iraq. We went to disarm Saddam.
But I don’t disagree with Sen. Warner here. We are not there to get in the middle of a civil war between Islamic sects.
But it exists because we removed Saddam.
We have removed Saddam.
Seems to have not been a great idea without a viable alternative. He is the less of teh current evil we’ve allowed to occur on our watch.
We have given the Iraqi people every opportunity and assistance to create and sustain a democratic state. If (and this appears more likely with each passing week) they are incapable of living together in peace and running their own affairs in a peaceful, democratic, and civilized way, then we should reconsider our presence there.
I think we should also reconsider what we did. If we went to liberate a country that can’t be liberated, then perhaps we didn’t first examine why Saddam was the way he was. Perhaps a dictaorship is the best form of government for a country filled with people who want to kill one another?
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink (To break out a cliche).
Comment by exley — August 3, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
But what gives you the right to lead a horse to water when it already had it in a source you just didn’t like?
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:57 pmI really don’t care what the Republicants need to tell themselves to allow our forces to leave this quaqmire. Like I said in another thread, everyone knows what went down.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:00 pmOne problem: Saddam is still alive.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:01 pmKrazny, I really don’t disagree with anything you just said. I find my position on Iraq evolving. I maintain that the initial decision to remove Saddam was correct. However, the questions of whether we have done a good job since Saddam was toppled and what is the best way to proceed from here are very much open to debate.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:03 pmhey, jack,
maybe you can add something about the usa giving bombs to israel to bomb children, while you are at it? just an idea…
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said a third of the casualties in the 23-day-old conflict were children under 12.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:03 pmPUT AN END TO THIS NONSENSE.
TO HELL WITH EVERY INCUMBENT.
OUR LEADERS HAVE FAILED MISERABLY IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO PROTECT US.
DO NOT RE-ELECT INCUMBENTS.
I REPEAT, AD NAUSEUM, DO - NOT - RE-ELECT - THE - INCUMBENTS!!!!!!
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:03 pmIve been thinking about the idea that Bush believes that he could do whatever he needs during a time of war. maybe we need to redefine our situation and what “war” constitutes and how long and how far that spreads. under the current ideas, we are at a constant war against terrorism that presumably will never end. I believe the war on terrorism should have a definition of its own and presidential war priveledges, if there is such a thing, should have its own rules.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:12 pmWhat defines a ‘real’ civil war? Does one side wear blue uniforms and the othe side wear grey?
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:12 pmGive me a break, the GOP will never say Iraq is in a civil war.
WTH? Why does he think they need to reexamine this if a civil war comes out of this? It should be enough that We, the People are pissed and aren’t buying their line of BS anymore.
Who gives a GD about Bush? I sure as hell don’t and most people I know don’t.
What a bunch of slimy sleazebags.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:13 pm#11 Erroll; I wish more people would take the blinders off and demonstrate in the streets. I’ve seen this crap before, up close and personal, losing friends. Before the first shot was fired, I said going into Iraq is an EXTREMELY BAD idea. Deja vu. Vietnam minus all those damn trees.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:17 pmTOTAL 2584Date Total Name Place of Death - Province Cause of Death
03-Aug-2006 2 | US: 2 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
02-Aug-2006 2 | US: 2 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Sergeant Ryan D. Jopek Tikrit - Salah ad Din Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
01-Aug-2006 2 | US: 1 | UK: 1 | Other: 0
US Specialist Dustin Laird Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, IED
UK Corporal Matthew Cornish Basra - Basrah Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack
Total 6 | US: 5 | UK: 1 | Other: 0
Copyright 2003-2006 by iCasualties.org
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:26 pmMr. Big, you get all kinds of people at this blog. I’m a libertarian in the woods, a lefty in the city, and a conservative with money and resources.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:32 pmAnd I don’t like to see people killed!
civil war has already started. started years ago.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:38 pmExley is figuring out you cannot “make” people accept things.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:07 pmI see by listening to the generals today, and by some of the comments on this thread, that the poor Iraqi people will be blamed for the entire fiasco. After all, we “liberated” them, didn’t we? Those ungrateful and incompetent schmucks who can’t even take advantage of the golden opportunity we benevolently granted them.
Wait for it.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:25 pmCLYDE
Jerkoff DeLay is going to take this to SCOTUS. Want to bet on the outcome?
This will be heard by the supremes even before the paperworks ink is dry and it will be five to four in favor of the pukes.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:40 pmSickening sadness sprung from madness:
Military says Texas soldier committed suicide
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:50 pmhttp://www.dallasnews.com/ sharedcontent/ dws/ dn/ latestnews/ stories/ 080406dntexsoldier.fc5a41.html
Of the Democratic presidential wannabees who were in the Senate back then, just about all of them — Sens. John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd — also voted for the resolution empowering the president to use force against Iraq. Among presidential aspirants, only Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold voted “no.”
Goddamn, I LOVE THIS MAN.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:08 pmOF COURSE IT’S A CIVIL WAR, YOU SILLY MAN
Of course we all know the expression “When they stand up, we’ll stand down.”
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:15 pmOn or around Valentine’s Day 2007 the Shia will have sufficient forces under arms to feel confident that they can dominate, decimate and destroy the Sunnis.
This being so, they will ask/tell/demand American forces to withdraw in order that they may proceed to dominate, decimate and destroy the Sunnis.
Given that they will, the Shia, pop the question to Mr Rumsfeld, et al, it begs this question.
“Donald, you love irony and sarcasm, what exactly are you going to respond when the Islamo-radicals ask you to withdraw so that they can slaughter the secular Sunnis?”
Perhaps they’ll phrase it this way. Thanks for the guns and uniforms. And by the way, yes, this is a civil war you silly, silly man, you friend of Zion. Now leave.
Oh irony, if you don’t move to protect and empower the very forces you came to disempower, then Iran (i.e. the Shia) will control Iraq and become an abutter to Israel.
“When they stand up, we’re screwed” is staring the world in the face.
St. Valentine’s Day it will be.
Who created the sectarian violence where there was none? The military in all of their stupidity, along with the sycophants on the hill OK’d the use of death squads that are financed, armed and trained by NSA (CIA and Defense special/black ops). NSA will start the slaughter to bring about ethnic tension through confusing killings, torture… Later, the US psychopaths will have trained local military/police units made up of the countries worst killer and ratchet up the killing.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:25 pm[…] WARNER: I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do in the context of the situation if we are faced with an all-out civil war. And whether have to come back to congress to get further indication of support. Source: Warner Suggests Congress May Need To Vote On New Iraq Resolution If Civil War Grows - America [Feed] […]
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:41 pmSupport the Troops. Get them the f*ck out of there.
Sen Warner, you might want to get on your idea — NOW.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:25 pmPlease notice the pessimistic assessments that General Abizaid and General Pace gave a Senate panel today about the situation in Iraq. When progressives express similar pessimistic views of Iraq, they are accused of supporting the terrorists.
Hmmm, very interesting double standard.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:44 pmEverything is coming unreveled. Of course this administration didn’t have to explain their endgame because IRAQ POSED A GRAVE DANGER? Once you get past that lie it’s unlikely congress would have let Bush have his little war. Or maybe they would have. It’s for sure congress has exerted little oversight in this debackle.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:33 pmSenators need to all wake-up to the fact rhat Bush lied to them, and has turned Iraq into a civil war hell-hole, so time for them to vote to cut off the funds for Iraq occupation, and time to vote for Bush to be impeached with Cheney!
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:08 pmWill the neocons conclude that Warner wants to “cut and run” or does that phrase only apply if a Democrat makes similar suggestions?
August 4th, 2006 at 5:40 amjust democrats or havent you noticed?
August 4th, 2006 at 6:11 amwhen I was serving in Viet nam? I felt the chill at 82 degrees in the night as I lay in waiting…there came a time that the reality of the situation settled in, it was time to either see the south viets stand up and fight effectively to establish a country or resign them to their fate?
August 4th, 2006 at 6:19 amIn Iraq every day police recruits it seems are killed and soldiers there too along with men women and children…such is the value of life there and someones desire for bloodlust and revenge…
the problem is much larger and complicated than 130,000 troops can contain…can you spell DRAFT?
Can you spell ASTRONOMICAL DEFECITS?
Wake up and smell the steanch of defeat, cut your losses and greet the new day…the Iranians are selling missiles to Hizbo;;ah, Chinese C-802 missiles hit an Iaraeli gun boat North Korea is selling war toys, theres a bad moon arising and the US is too stupidly quagmired in a Iraq to adjust and adapt because some meat head republicans have their EGO invested in Iraq?
Warner has enabled everything that has happened up to this point. He like so many other Republicans sold out his loyalty to his country for his loyalty to his party. One slap and this poor little pooch will stop any and all growling and get back in line. He is too pathetic.
August 4th, 2006 at 9:09 am[…] Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA) has said that Congress may have to pass a new resolution authorizing the continuing use of U.S. military force in Iraq if a civil war breaks out in that country. “I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do in the context of a situation if we’re faced with an all-out civil war, and whether we have to come back to the Congress to get further indication of support.” […]
August 4th, 2006 at 9:13 amEnjoy your month-long vacation, Warner.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:18 am“Congress might have to reconsider and potentially approve a new mission for the U.S. military.â€
New Mission? I hope you’re talking about a mission to get them out of there. That’s the only “new mission” our boys need in Iraq.
New Mission.
Rethug.
Never. Forget.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:45 amThe only meaningful thing to be done is for Congress to seize war powers from the UE (unitary exec). Anything else is farce.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:49 amWe will get what we get, when we get it, all because of this neo-con administration, and gwb will just go down with his ship of state, taking all of US along with them!
August 4th, 2006 at 8:51 pmLet’s keep our eye on the ball folks. It’s the oil. From the establishment of Israel to today, it always has been about the oil. Too simplistic for so many but true. N’est pas?
August 5th, 2006 at 8:23 amI suppose the CIA will have to make a nonfriendly visit to Saddam’s jailroom before he gets back into power through a coup.
August 5th, 2006 at 6:26 pm[…] In the last week alone, those warning of a civil war in Iraq include: America’s top commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey; Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace, Centcom commander Gen. John Abizaid; and Britain’s ambassador to Iraq. But what does Bush hear? ’yadda yadda yadda.’ (more…) […]
August 9th, 2006 at 1:59 am[…] The problem is that sectarian violence has continued unabated, which drowns out Bush’s plans for a victory. Moreover, GOP Warner suggests that Congress may need to vote on a new Iraq War Resolution if civil war breaks out because US troops may not be equipped to handle civil war and thus a new mission may have to be approved for the US military. This would put a damper on Bush’s claims to broad “war on terror” powers emanating from the original Iraq War resolution, which may now be superceded. […]
October 28th, 2006 at 7:49 pm