H.R. 413 would repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and to require the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.
Detailed Summary
Repeals the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (P.L. 107-243).
Requires the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq.
It reads as follows . . .
SEC. 1. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM IRAQ.
The President of the United States shall provide for the withdrawal of units and members of the United States Armed Forces deployed in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom in a safe and orderly manner.
HR 413 was introduced by Representative Sam Farr of California, and currently has the following co-sponsors:
Rep Earl Blumenauer [OR-3], Rep Michael E. Capuano [MA-8], Rep Raul M. Grijalva [AZ-7], Rep Dennis J. Kucinich [OH-10], Rep Barbara Lee [CA-9], Rep Lynn C. Woolsey [CA-6], Rep Jose E. Serrano [NY-16], Rep Michael M. Honda [CA-15], and Rep Steve Cohen [TN-9] -- as of 3/20/07.
Status of the Legislation
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)
Points in Favor
H.R. 413 is simple and direct. It is the best way to begin the redeployment process that now 70% of Americans favor.
Here's how DownsizeDC.org characterized this bill...
"Stop experimenting with American lives"
DownsizeDC.org goes on to point out that, President Bush has had four years to bring peace to Iraq. Every experiment he has tried to achieve that goal has been considered a failure -- even by the staunchest supporters in his own party. But DownsizeDC.org thinks it's shocking that Bush wants to expend more American lives and money on what is really just another experiment.
The Democrats, by contrast, seem to have adopted a "stay the course" strategy. They oppose the President's new experiment, but seem in no hurry to leave the laboratory.
This leaves U.S. policy adrift, at the cost of innocent American lives and hundreds of billions of your tax money. Isn't it time to stop the experiments? Isn't the verdict from the laboratory already clear?
1) Too many Iraqi's prefer war to peace. This is their decision, and their responsibility.
2) If the Iraqi factions want peace, they can negotiate a settlement. American diplomats may have a role to play in this, if the factions desire it, but our troops are not needed for that purpose.
3) The presence of American troops in Iraq merely clouds the issue.
4) If American troops stay, are we supposed to choose sides? Which side are we supposed to favor, the Sunni or the Shia? The Sunni are the minority, but the Shia are tied to Iran. Do we really have a horse in that race? Are we supposed to attack both at once, and assume that this will lead to a peace settlement?
There are no American answers to these questions. There is no place for U.S. soldiers in this equation.
It is an Iraqi question, that only the Iraqi's can answer. That is, after all, what self-determination is all about.
HR 413 provides the correct means to achieve troop redeployment and Iraqi self-determination
HR 413 would de-authorize the occupation. We got into this mess because Congress authorized it. We must get out of it by having Congress de-authorize it.
De-authorizing is a superior first step when compared to de-funding. If Congress starts by de-funding the occupation the President will claim that Congress is really de-funding the troops. Congress can sidestep this rhetorical game-playing by first removing the President's authority to continue the occupation.
Once that is done, if the President tries to continue the occupation on his own, Congress can begin the de-funding process from a position of moral and legal strength.
Congress must reassert its Constitutional control over the war-making power. The President has no Constitutional authority to make war or occupy foreign countries on his own. Only Congress has the Constitutional power to authorize war, and what Congress has authorized, it can de-authorize.
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Ogre
Should be named, "Let's run away and leave Iraq to a bloody civil war or invasion from Iran Act.
Jake
The number two man at Al-Qaeda has stated that its his goal to keep Americans trapped in Iraq for as long as possible to maximize troop deaths. Meanwhile, our resources are stretched so thin, we couldn't respond quickly to the Katrina disaster, and we couldn't respond quickly to the recent midwestern tornado disaster. How exactly are we going to respond to another terror incident on American soil?
This should be named "Americans come first."
Morgan
This should be named: "American Anti-Imperialism Act of 2007."
Last time I checked, the founding fathers of this great nation forged this country to place the freedom of its citizens above all. Last time I checked, the founding fathers of this nation fought against an imperial power [British Empire], not as one. Last time I checked, the goal of our government was to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to "spread democracy and freedom" in a new age, imperialistic faction.
A great nation leads by example, not by force. Imperialism is disgusting and unbecoming of a once admirable constitutional republic.
Bryan
To Jake: Who do you think responded to the last attack? Firefighters, Police, some National Guard, but they didn't do much. A few F16's here and there. Are you saying that we have everything we've got in Iraq and we can't even spare a dozen F16's?
To Morgan: Last I checked Iraq was an imperialist nation when we invaded. Last I checked, Imperialism is for the purpose of bringing the resources of the conquered nation back home (checked gas prices lately? we sure aren't doing that), last I checked the founding fathers did this kind of stuff all the time. think Indian wars, slavery, whiskey rebellion, invasion of tripoli etc...
Dubya has said if Iraq asked him to leave he would. They haven't. I do support getting out of Iraq, but not before Iraq is ready. Doing so beforehand negates all the life and property already sacrificed.
Gary
Does anybody really think we want to stay in Iraq. It was never an objective and still isn't. The US is anti-imperialistic and has been for more than a century, we won't change, by design we believe in freedom. don't want Iraq to be governed by the group that can kill more opponent politicians.
I'm not to sure how the war had an effect on Katrina, the federal government was handcuffed by an extremely incompetent local and state government.
The core nature of this country is to help others. That includes other countries. Look at what good the US has done over the last century. When we have been wrong we do what ever is within our power to make the situation better.
If we leave to early, we may be forced to go back with the UN to fight a much bigger, wider and more costly war in a couple years.
David
Mr. Bush should send his spoiled twin daughters to Iraq in place of Jessica Lynch. Perhaps, Mr. Cheney would like to send his own lesbian daughter , who currently pregnant from sperm donor and working in a comfortable position at AOL Time Warner, which she got from Pappy Cheney.
Lily
BRING THEM HOME NOW.
Democracy begins here.
Cheney and Halliburton started this mess, they can finish it without US military involvement.
Ed
To Bryan: I guess you missed the news polls that stated ~75% of Iraqis want us out and ~50% of Iraqis support killing US troops. When troops even begin using the the "V" word, "staying the course" is no longer a viable option. BTW, the "V" wasn't for victory either. Just think of the last time we stepped into the middle of a foreign civil war.
Bryan
To Ed: Nope, I didn't miss that. The Iraqi government hasn't requested it. That's the problem. The Iraqi people have the power but they have to vote it in there. That's something the Iraqi's could and should do. Just because some poll took it doesn't mean that poll has any authority. If I took a poll that said Jacques Chirac should be pantsed while urinating at a stall, and 75% said yes, doesn't mean it will happen.
I'm all for troop pullout, but if the government isn't ready yet then what's the point?
Tim
whatever...I'm not sure why this thing even needs discussion. In keeping with the posts above, this bill should really just be named "Presidential Veto"
Tom
Last time I checked we were still in Germany, Korea and Japan. I haven't heard anyone whining and crying to bring those troops home yet. But plenty of you whine and cry to leave Iraq.
We are there for legit just reasons. Who made you have presidential access to see all the national security info to make that determination?
We don't leave until the country is stable and under stable government control. Supporting our troops either means keep your mouth shut if you don't like it, or truly support out troops. I spent 6 months in Iraq/Saudi Arabia in Desert Storm and I can tell you that all troops hear is the BAD out of your mouths, all they know is their country can't even support them in this mission. So shut up, keep your selfish opinions to yourselves, or truly support our troops by signing up and going over there to relieve them.