The Lack Of Interest in LIBZ destorying our country On This Here Board Is Disturbung

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_ENERGY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-19-03-54-44

Say hello to higher gas prices ;)


Dems Take Aim at Oil Company Tax Breaks
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif http://hosted.ap.org/photos/7/70c2993d-772d-40de-b906-f3b2a4f6acd5-small.jpg (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/photos/7/70c2993d-772d-40de-b906-f3b2a4f6acd5.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
AP Photo/DENNIS COOK http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif U.S. Video
http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif tcdacmd="cc=wdn; dt";
http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif var SECTION_TPL='POLITICS'; var excVal = check_exc(); if( excVal == 1 ) { document.write('
Advertisement
'); document.write('<div align="center">'); document.write(''); document.write('http://oascentral.hosted.ap.org/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/7219.hosted.ap.org/POLITICS/1' + RNS+ '@x96 (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/)'); document.write(''+''); }
Advertisement
http://oascentral.hosted.ap.org/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/7219.hosted.ap.org/POLITICS/1945555347@x96 (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/)var tcdacmd="sa=a;sz=3;ad";
var excVal = check_exc(); if( excVal == 1 ) { document.write(''); document.write(''); document.write('http://oascentral.hosted.ap.org/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/7219.hosted.ap.org/POLITICS/1' + RNS+ '@x03 (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/)'); document.write(''); } http://oascentral.hosted.ap.org/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/7219.hosted.ap.org/POLITICS/1945555347@x03 (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/) http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats are targeting billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks for quick repeal next year. A broader energy proposal that would boost alternative energy sources and conservation is expected to be put off until later.
Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil."
Yet the energy plan being assembled by Pelosi's aides for the initial round of legislation is less ambitious than her pronouncement might suggest.
http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif AP_Tacoda_AMS_DDC_addPair("SECTION", "POLITICS") AP_Tacoda_AMS_DDC("http://te.ap.org/tte/blank.gif", "1.0") http://te.ap.org/tte/blank.gif?0.32218120288889207&snippet_version=1.3.a&referrer=http%3A//drudgereport.com/&page=http%3A//hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_ENERGY%3FSITE%3D7219%26SECTION%3DHOME%26T EMPLATE%3DDEFAULT%26CTIME%3D2006-11-19-03-54-44&timezone=360&clist_TID=1efp0mn12m1f8s&var_SECTION=POLITICS http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif For the most part, the tax benefits are ones that lawmakers talked of repealing this year when Congress struggled to respond to the public outcry over soaring summer fuel prices and oil companies' huge profits.
Topping the list for repeal are:
-Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration.
-A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad.
http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_business/oh_coal/button_medium.jpg (javascript:popUp('http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_business/oh_coal/index.html?SITE=7219')) http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif Latest News Polish Gas Monopoly Signs New Gas Deal (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/POLAND_RUSSIA_ENERGY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-19-15-10-18) Dems Take Aim at Oil Company Tax Breaks (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_ENERGY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-19-03-54-44)
Summary: House Dems Discuss Energy Goals (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_ENERGY_SUMMARY_BOX?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-18-16-12-30)
Hubble Telescope Makes New Discovery (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DARK_ENERGY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-16-18-42-05)
DOE Vows to Turn Up Appliance Efficiency (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ENERGY_STANDARDS?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-13-11-50-29)

http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif Interactives Sen. Max Baucus: The AP Interview (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/baucus_interview/index.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME) Congressional Scandals (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/congress_scandals/index.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME)
Mark Foley Scandal Timeline (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/foley/index.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME)
Harry Reid Land Deal (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/reid/index.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME)
Lobbyists Family Ties (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/lobbyists/index.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME)
Congressional Leadership Financial Disclosure (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/2006disclosure/index.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME)
Congressional Pay (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/congress_salaries/index.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME)
Congressional Pensions (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/congress_pensions/index.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME)

http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif Latest News McCain Says More Troops Needed in Iraq (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-19-14-50-05) Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MILITARY_DRAFT?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-19-13-31-12)
Dems Take Aim at Oil Company Tax Breaks (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_ENERGY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-19-03-54-44)
Summary: House Dems Discuss Energy Goals (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_ENERGY_SUMMARY_BOX?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-18-16-12-30)
Reid: Dems to Seek GOP Aid on Wage Hike (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_RADIO_ADDRESS?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-18-11-25-39)

http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif Buy AP Photo Reprints http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gifhttp://hosted.ap.org/specials/images/ap_photo_promo.jpg (http://pictopia.com/perl/gal?provider_id=38)
http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif var urlArray=document.URL.split("?"); document.write("
");

http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif http://hosted.ap.org/icons/spacer.gif Democrats say neither tax benefit should be needed for an industry reaping large profits at today's high crude oil prices.
Over 10 years, the production tax credit saves oil companies $5 billion and the refinery measure and exploration credit a total of about $1.4 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Other oil tax breaks probably will go unchallenged. That includes some passed by Congress only a year ago and others already targeted for repeal this year.
For example, House Democrats have no plans to change a provision that allows oil companies to avoid billions of dollars in taxes by the way they calculate inventories. The Senate this year agreed to a repeal; the effort was abandoned amid House GOP opposition and an uproar from other industries that also benefit from the tax language.
House Democrats also are shying away from tampering with more than $1 billion worth of oil- and gas-related tax breaks, enacted last year. These breaks largely benefit small companies or gas utilities rather than the major oil companies now awash in cash.
Nevertheless, the House and Senate are expected to push legislation early to force oil companies to renegotiate flawed offshore drilling leases that have allowed the companies to avoid paying federal royalties. The loss eventually could cost the government $10 billion, according to some congressional estimates.
Other prime targets of House and Senate Democrats include:
-Alleged price gouging. Proposals to create a federal price gouging law for gasoline and other fuels probably will move quickly.
-More incentives and mandates to expand the use of ethanol and biodiesel as a substitute for gasoline. Requiring oil companies to phase in retail pumps that deliver fuel that is 85 percent ethanol.
-Requiring power companies to produce a percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Such a measure is a priority of Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., incoming chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
-Extending energy efficiency tax credits approved by Congress last year. Most are scheduled to expire at the end of next year.
-Expanding a tax break for buyers of gas-electric hybrid cars and offering more incentives for automakers to build greater numbers of the vehicles.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who will take over as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he plans hearings on legislation to spur further production and distribution of ethanol and biodiesel, and promote conservation.
But he suggested it will take time to produce legislation. "The process is a long one. It takes hearings, it takes fact finding," said Dingell in a telephone interview.
On the Senate side, Bingaman probably will avoid writing a single broad energy bill, preferring to push through specific legislation. Among Bingaman's other goals are new incentives to spur renewable energy development and more tax breaks for conservation.
Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to develop more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and examine "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies."
Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate Democrats and will be one of the party's top strategists.

[SoonerBorn68]

Good. Maybe higher gas prices will cause lower usage & I'll get some time off.
:D

Wait, we're drillin' for natural gas & it's winter...nevermind.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We invited them in. We like their schtick.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Stephen Colbert says that the election was just because we have more cowards in our country now :(

[Okla-homey]

If they are serious about raising taxes on oil companies, the oil comapnies will just pass the cost on to the consumer. Have they been out of power so long they have forgotten Economics 101? sheesh.

Perhaps they think "Big Oil" will suffer a higher tax burden, and just suck it down without passing it on. I should think the shareholders (incl. many who voted donkey) would crap kittens if that happened.

I suspect it's just that they are trying to make a big splash to announce their arrival. If not, it's really pathetic.

In other news, big donkey Charlie Rangel was making the rounds touting his plan to introduce a revived draft. That too will go over HUGE!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

In other news, big donkey Charlie Rangel was making the rounds touting his plan to introduce a revived draft. That too will go over HUGE!So, why do you think he's doing that?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

My guess is that higher gas prices and a draft would insure only 2 years of responsibility, that way they can go back to their old stand by of blaming the Republicans ;)

[Okla-homey]

So, why do you think he's doing that?

Pretty obvious to me. Charlie is a cagey donkey. He understands the only way to get momentum for a "peace at any price" movement (c.1972) is if kids are drafted for the war. If that happens, Charlie believes "movements" will spring-up on all American university campii, which would keep the Donkeys in power. Staying in power is Job #1. Unfortunately, such developments would also make the jihaadis very happy, because they will have won.

[85Sooner]

Hey the dems will get what they deserve. Can't wait to see what happens when oile charlie rangle tries to reinstitute the draft in january.I'm out

[Okla-homey]

Hey the dems will get what they deserve. Can't wait to see what happens when oile charlie rangle tries to reinstitute the draft in january.I'm out

I wonder if he wants to draft females too? I sure hope so, because that "males only" dealio is sexist.:D

Of course, the silence from NOW will be deafening.

And please, no griping about having crushing student loan debt that can't be repaid on an E-1's pay. Shouldda thought about the possibility the donkeys would draft ya when ya voted for 'em. What? Didn't know? Pay attention! Big Donkey Charlie Rangel has been flogging a reinstated draft (lacking college deferments) for 18 months now.

In truth, I wouldn't worry about it. It can't happen without passing both houses and 1) the Senate is not veto-proof AND 2) Senate rules require 60 votes to halt debate and force an up or down vote on any bill. The Donkeys only have 51.

[Vaevictis]

Rangel knows it won't pass. He'll never get the votes in either house from either party. It would be political suicide for waaaay too many people. (... unless, of course, it really becomes necessary)

He's just trying to make the point that this war would be viewed and conducted very, very differently if 60% of middle America had a son, daughter, nephew, etc over there. People would demand a lot more of the leadership if everyone and/or everyone's kid could be sucked up and dropped off over there at any moment.

And it's easy to bash the Dems over this because Rangel is a pretty easy figure to point at, but lest you forget, it's Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) who will introduce the Senate version of the bill.

EDIT: Correction. Hagel might not introduce it, but he's on the record as supporting it.

[Okla-homey]

Rangel knows it won't pass. He'll never get the votes in either house from either party. It would be political suicide for waaaay too many people. (... unless, of course, it really becomes necessary)

He's just trying to make the point that this war would be viewed and conducted very, very differently if 60% of middle America had a son, daughter, nephew, etc over there. People would demand a lot more of the leadership if everyone and/or everyone's kid could be sucked up and dropped off over there at any moment.

And it's easy to bash the Dems over this because Rangel is a pretty easy figure to point at, but lest you forget, it's Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) who will introduce the Senate version of the bill.

So, why waste the peoples' time and money on this "legislation?" I fail to see the logical connection with trying to make everyone under 42 draft eligible (or whatever the upper age limit is these days) and ending the war.

Is it about trying to make people feel that there may be a draft so we better get out of SWA quick? If so, that's just about the most morally reprehensible thing I've heard spewed in the hallowed halls of Congress in a very long time. IOW, it plays on the fear of cowards in order to stay in power and does absolutely NOTHING to defeat jihaadism.

I've had it up to here with this defeatism. This country has proven time and again it has the means and the brains destroy these people. After all, all they really have on their side is our collective fear. That's why they call it "terrorism." Perhaps someday, we'll take the gloves off and settle it once and for all.

There is one thing of which I'm positively certain, having spent a fair amount of time on the ground over there. We leave, and it spins out of control. Further, they aren't about to leave us alone if we split. They'll only be emboldened to do their worst to "finish us off." Then, we'll have to start all over again by establishing bases and the logistical presence in the region to fight them.

[usmc-sooner]

holy crap I might get drafted.

[Vaevictis]

So, why waste the peoples' time and money on this "legislation?"

Some people have a hard-on for gestures that make a point but accomplish nothing ;)


I fail to see the logical connection with trying to make everyone under 42 draft eligible (or whatever the upper age limit is these days) and ending the war.

Oh, I don't see it as necessarily having an effect of ending the war like you seem to be thinking. I think Bush has gotten a free pass for far too long on how he has prosecuted the war, and there needs to be some pressure on him to make progress.

These past few years without that pressure, the Bush administration has been permitted to pursue a strategy that is clearly not working in so far as our stated goals in Iraq are concerned.

With the kind of political pressure that would result as a side effect of the draft, I think we'd have long since decided either that we're not willing to pay the price and get out of there... or that we need to stop dicking around and get serious about winning.

(And the reason I say the administration has not been serious about winning is that given the stated goals in Iraq -- ie, a stable democracy... well, let's put it this way. The best measure I can see for progress towards that goal is civilian death toll. The administration says, "We're making progress." But that number will necessarily approach zero as we get closer to the goal. And it's not been doing that -- at best, it's been holding steady, maybe even increasing a little. There seems to be a disconnect between what the administration will admit is going on and what the numbers show.)


Is it about trying to make people feel that there may be a draft so we better get out of SWA quick? If so, that's just about the most morally reprehensible thing I've heard spewed in the hallowed halls of Congress in a very long time.

I think some people think it will make us get out of there faster. I think it will vary from person to person, from Congressman to Congressman. I think some people view it as a way to force us out of Iraq (maybe Rangel). And I think some people -- like me -- view it as a way to force us to either get serious about winning over there, or get out. (probably Hagel)

I am of the opinion that if we're not going to get serious, we need to get out. We're doing our guys a great disservice by having them over there laying it all on the line while our leadership at home dicks around playing politics, spouting mealy mouthed phrases like "stay the course", "cut and run", "progress is being made", "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

If you're in a fight, you do one of two things -- you commit fully, fighting tooth and nail. Or you run. But don't half-*** it and trade shots with the other guy. And IMO, in Iraq, we're currently half-assing it and trading shots.

I have some thoughts on the rest of your comment, but it's taking entirely too long to organize them on the subject.

But the basic comment I would make is that in any low intensity conflict (like in Iraq), a democracy only has a certain window to win it. The window is currently closing, and we need something to hold it open.

The Republican pre-election mantra of "stay the course" wouldn't have sufficed. The window would have slammed shut, and in '08, we'd have seen the most looney anti-war people put in office in droves just to get us right the **** out of there.

But with a very small majority, the Democrats will only be able to put pressure on the administration, not effect a mass-withdrawal. And IMO, pressure is just what this administration needs to get out of this whole "oh, everything is going just fine" state of denial it's been in.

And once it's visibly been jolted out of that state, that fact may hold the window open long enough for us to win this thing.

[Vaevictis]

As an addendum, I would add that it might be that what you consider "fully committed" and what I consider "fully committed" might be different, but I am pretty confident that we can agree that the current state doesn't quality.

[Okla-homey]

V,
I agree with most of what you posted in the previous two. I do have a problem with the legislative branch trying to weigh-in and push the executive branch around.

As I see it, and I think the law is pretty clear on this, the legislative branch's responsibilities under Article I of the Const. are limited to: paying for the Army and Navy; preparing the Uniform Code of Military Justice; and writing statutes which regulate the way the military does business.

Everything else, including when, where, and for how long we deploy forces is decided by the occupant of the White House. I'm quite sure the current Court would view it that way too.

As you're no doubt aware, that "War Powers Act" thingy passed in 1974 in the wake of the Vietnam War is toothless for precisely the reasons I've stated above.

In short, the only real influence on military operations the Congress has is through its control of defense appropriations.

If the donkeys try to pull back funding while we have kids in harm's way, they will get a drubbing in '08 that will make the still unprecedented 1994 donkey evacuation look like a minor setback.

IOW, nothing's likely to change, and I agree with you my Sooner brutha, THAT SUCKS!

[Scott D]

homey, as a historian you should be obviously know that Congress really doesn't do much except waste the taxpayers time and money on useless "legislation".

I only support the Rangel idea if ole willie favor gets drafted.

[Vaevictis]

Everything else, including when, where, and for how long we deploy forces is decided by the occupant of the White House. I'm quite sure the current Court would view it that way too.

(...)

In short, the only real influence on military operations the Congress has is through its control of defense appropriations.

On a different note, I have a question regarding this viewpoint:

What use then is the power -- reserved to Congress -- to declare war?

I agree that the President has some authority to deploy on his own recognizance, but I do not believe that that authority is unlimited as you seem to be positing -- otherwise, as I see it the power to declare war is meaningless. In such case, why assign that power to Congress at all?

[Okla-homey]

On a different note, I have a question regarding this viewpoint:

What use then is the power -- reserved to Congress -- to declare war?

I agree that the President has some authority to deploy on his own recognizance, but I do not believe that that authority is unlimited as you seem to be positing -- otherwise, as I see it the power to declare war is meaningless. In such case, why assign that power to Congress at all?

I quite agree. We have'nt declared war since 1941. It's rather an anachronism from an earlier era.

[Vaevictis]

I'm not sure I'm getting the answer to the question.

It seems that you may be saying that the Founders didn't intend that the power be unlimited, but that de facto (due to circumstance post-1941) it is? Or that there is a string of rulings that has caused this result? Or just that your expectation is that there will be rulings that will cause this result?

[Okla-homey]

I'm not sure I'm getting the answer to the question.

It seems that you may be saying that the Founders didn't intend that the power be unlimited, but that de facto (due to circumstance post-1941) it is? Or that there is a string of rulings that has caused this result? Or just that your expectation is that there will be rulings that will cause this result?

My point is that there is no special set of Constitutional or statutory circumstances invoked when Congress declares war.

Also, the notion of Congress declaring war is an anachronism from an earlier era. In the modern era, given the President's authority to order a nuclear strike without conferring with anyone (including Congress,) the notion that Congress plays a role in authorizing the deployment of forces is, well, irrelevant. That is just a fact of modern life unfathomable to the framers.

There are no cases on point simply because the Court has assiduosly avoided hearing them based on their prudential perogative on grounds of their "justiciability." Put another way, the Court refuses to don a striped shirt and referee on separation of powers cases deeming them "political questions."

It may be unsatisfying and rather cryptic to the average guy on the street, but that's the way it is. In short, the Prez can order large-scale military operations against any country he chooses, without asking Congress' permission.

That is why we should all vote, and choose wisely.

[Vaevictis]

Okay, I can see that. Basically, a limit was intended, but is de facto impractical (and in fact unenforcable) given today's circumstances.

I think I see one situation in which the power to declare war is binding on the President: In a situation where Congress declares war, the President must pursue it yes? (how is left to him obviously, and he can do it with varying levels of vigor, but the fact would remain that we were at war).

In order for the state of war to lapse, a peace treaty must necessarily be adopted -- which must be ratified by the Senate.

Yeah, kinda twisty and turny, with some loop holes (forcing the President to pursue the war with the desired level of vigor, for example), but that's one case where the power still has teeth, yes?

[Okla-homey]

Okay, I can see that. Basically, a limit was intended, but is de facto impractical (and in fact unenforcable) given today's circumstances.

I think I see one situation in which the power to declare war is binding on the President: In a situation where Congress declares war, the President must pursue it yes? (how is left to him obviously, and he can do it with varying levels of vigor, but the fact would remain that we were at war).

In order for the state of war to lapse, a peace treaty must necessarily be adopted -- which must be ratified by the Senate.

Yeah, kinda twisty and turny, with some loop holes (forcing the President to pursue the war with the desired level of vigor, for example), but that's one case where the power still has teeth, yes?

I never thought about it quite that way, but it sounds plausible, although, historically it has never happened that way. Instead, the President, in his constitutional role as commander-in-chief, walks into a special joint session called for the purpose, whereupon he lays it out for Congress based on what his subordinate commanders and the Secretary of War (no SECDEF until 1947) briefed him.

It's happened precisely five times in American history. War of 1812, Mex War, Span-Am, WWI, WWII.

Revy War? No, predated the Constitution.
Armed action vs. Libyan Piracy in the Med.? No.
The entire history of US military operations against Indian tribes? No.
Civil War? No, it would have involved acknowledging the states in rebellion were a separate country.
Various 19th and early 20th cent. Central & South American interventions? No.
Chinese interventions (aka "The Boxer Rebellion," etc.)? No.
Russian Bolshevik Revolution interventions? No.
Korea? No.
Cuban Missile Crisis and the resultant naval blockade which was an act of war? No.
Vietnam (1961-1973)? No.
Grenada? No.
Panama? No.
Libya? No.
Gulf War I? No.
Gulf War II/GWOT? No.

[Vaevictis]

Well, after considering the implications for awhile, it occurred to me that if my view point is correct, a group of politicians could potentially make a *lot* of political hay by declaring war on Al Qaeda in the near future, forcing the President to turn more of his attention on that organization.

Now, I don't know that I think that would be a good idea. But if you wanted to force a draw down in Iraq, the fact that we do have our plate fairly full right now combined with said declaration of war might have some effect towards that end.

And the fact that your average Joe off the street might not think past "Holy crap, we're declaring war on Al Qaeda! **** yeah, it's about time!" might just be a way for a certain party to force the issue of withdrawal from Iraq without looking like a bunch of pansies.

Again, I'm not saying that this would be a good idea. I'm just exploring possible results of this idea I had.

[Okla-homey]

Well, after considering the implications for awhile, it occurred to me that if my view point is correct, a group of politicians could potentially make a *lot* of political hay by declaring war on Al Qaeda in the near future, forcing the President to turn more of his attention on that organization.

Now, I don't know that I think that would be a good idea. But if you wanted to force a draw down in Iraq, the fact that we do have our plate fairly full right now combined with said declaration of war might have some effect towards that end.

And the fact that your average Joe off the street might not think past "Holy crap, we're declaring war on Al Qaeda! **** yeah, it's about time!" might just be a way for a certain party to force the issue of withdrawal from Iraq without looking like a bunch of pansies.

Again, I'm not saying that this would be a good idea. I'm just exploring possible results of this idea I had.

But how do you declare war on an amorphous international organization? Declarations of war involve naming enemy nation states. Therefore, I suspect such a declaration would involve war vs. any state in which Al-Q is known to have an active "chapter." That would include our "allies" Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.:eek:

[Vaevictis]

But how do you declare war on an amorphous international organization? Declarations of war involve naming enemy nation states.

Just because there's no precedent for declaring war on a non-nation doesn't mean it can't be done.

As far as how you do it, I expect somebody drafts a resolution to that effect, and the Congress votes on it.

[Vaevictis]

Therefore, I suspect such a declaration would involve war vs. any state in which Al-Q is known to have an active "chapter." That would include our "allies" Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.:eek:

Which, if you're only playing politics, is not a problem.

It leaves a big fat turd on the President's desk as he tries to figure out just how he's going to sort that clusterf*ck out.

And as I mentioned, because the average Joe is not going to think very deeply about it -- who the hell is going to say going after Al Qaeda is a bad thing? -- all of the flak from this action is likely to get dumped directly on the Oval Office.

[Okla-homey]

I don't see it happening. Remember, the donkeys are the "party of peace." Or at least that's the platform on which they ran the mid-terms.:rolleyes:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I believe you are incredibly wrong....The Donkeys ran on a platform of "See we don't have an R behind our name!!"

[Vaevictis]

Well, I got a different impression -- mostly that the ran on the idea that Iraq is a cluster**** and that it's Bush's (and by extension, the Republican's) fault, and that the Republicans are a bunch of corrupt mofos. And in some quarters, that the Republicans are a bunch of paedophiles.

Yeah, there were some Democrats that ran on peace, but the party platform on the whole was not quite that.

But yeah, I don't see it happening either, but mostly because:
1. I hope that the Democrats are not just going to do **** because it's politically advantageous. (I know, I'm a lost cause. But I still hope.)
2. I doubt anyone on the Hill will find that line of thought and follow it to the same conclusion.
3. The Dems have their eyes on the White House for 2008 (obviously) and any bad stuff that occurs from such a declaration will be inherited by whoever wins that year. They probably wouldn't want to drop such nastiness on their own candidate, should s/he win.

[Mixer!]

What about all those broad "hints" that Carl Levin has mentioned about dropping continued funding for the war in Iraq? Isn't that more likely to achieve the dems' goal of withdrawing the troops than Rangel's charade? :confused:

[Vaevictis]

What you've got to realize is that the Democrats as a party aren't organized as a top-down monolithic entity like the Republican party has been for the past few years.

As a rule, you can't take any one Dem -- even a powerful one -- as speaking for the party. You actually have to count the votes s/he can muster.

If you've been paying attention, you'll notice that Pelosi tried to throw her weight around and get Murtha elected to the Majority Leader spot. Murtha lost.

The fact that the future Speaker pushed a candidate for a position and that candidate lost should tell you all you need about the Democratic party in this regard.

[Okla-homey]

Well, I got a different impression -- mostly that the ran on the idea that Iraq is a cluster**** and that it's Bush's (and by extension, the Republican's) fault, and that the Republicans are a bunch of corrupt mofos. And in some quarters, that the Republicans are a bunch of paedophiles.

Unfortunately, corruption knows no party.

On August 3, 1988, the House of Representatives voted on a resolution, co-sponsored by Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers, to impeach Alcee Hastings, the federal judge in Florida accused of conspiring to take a bribe.

On that day 18 years ago, some of the Democrats who are today preparing to take power in the House were relatively new to the job; others were, even then, veterans who had served in Congress for years. For both, the vote was a rarity; Hastings was just the 10th judge in U.S. history to face impeachment.

One of the newcomers to the House was the future Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had been in office a little more than a year. She voted to impeach Hastings. The evidence was absolutley indisputable that Hastings was crooked. The vote to impeach was 413 to 3 -- in a donkey controlled House. Hastings was removed from the Federal bench as a result.

He later ran for congress from Florida and won. Now, the donkeys want to name Hastings as chair of the vitally important House Intelligence Committee.

Amazing.

[Mixer!]

Eh, all I've seen and heard from the demo leadership since election night is how the country has now embraced their POV, and how they're going to carry out their mandate (just as soon as they've finished picking out their office's new decorating scheme).