Posted under Politics
Now this has some fascinating implications:
The state Assembly voted Monday to place a measure on Californiaâ€™s Feb. 5 ballot urging President George W. Bush to immediately withdraw American troops from Iraq.
The 43-32 roll call vote left the proposal one step from Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggerâ€™s desk.
It now goes back to the Senate, which approved a slightly different version of the bill in June. … The bill asks California voters if Bush should â€œachieve the immediate, complete, safe and orderly withdrawal of United States forcesâ€ from Iraq.
California has taken some significant steps toward self-government recently, which weâ€™ve dutifully and cheerfully reported (see California steps closer toward self-government), but this takes things to a whole new level.Â Oddly, an equally earth-shaking event in the California Senate merited a throwaway line at the end of the article:
While the Assembly was debating whether to pull out of Iraq, the Senate approved a resolution urging the president to stop sending National Guard troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whoa!Â Actually, there are some important historical precedents for State opposition to DCâ€™s wars.Â During the highly unpopular War of 1812, several New England States threatened secession, and Vermont and Massachusetts refused to send their militias to fight a war they considered an immoral and illegal campaign to forcibly annex Canada.
Bush has vowed that he will not end his glorious little war of â€œliberationâ€ in Iraq, which will leave it to his successor (Hillary and Obama?) to clean up after him.Â But Hillary, as a leftist Democrat and woman, will have unbearable pressure on her to prove her toughness, which may well put her in the position of Lyndon Johnson, who had to expand the war in Vietnam to prove his â€œanti-communistâ€ credentials.Â That may in turn force anti-war States to resume control of their own militias, or prohibiting military operations being launched from their territories.Â This should be interesting.