Dammit!! Pelosi and Reid playing follow the leader.

[happydreams]

Now why am I not excited as so many others about the letter from Pelosi and Reid to Bush?
You see how Bush did it? You see how he is forcing the democrats to REACT to HIS earlier call for escalation. Bush set the agenda, framed the issue.

Pelosi and Reid should not be talking about no escalation they should be talking about

STOPPING THE GODDAMN WAR!!



EXCLUSIVE DEM LETTER TO BUSH: "WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO REJECT ANY PLANS THAT CALL FOR OUR GETTING OUR TROOPS ANY DEEPER INTO IRAQ"

Dear Mr. President:

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.........





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/05/exc_n_37915.ht...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. What planet are you from?

This was a great maneuver. They told Bush to fuck off before he even announced his plan. Shit, I've been saying for weeks that we wouldn't get the Democratic position until after Bush laid out his plan. I was wrong. They undercut him, and they did it properly. They've made an official statement while he's still playing in the sandbox with Hadley and the other retards.

Also, if you've got a reasonable legislative program for ending the war (aside from "defund the military!" which ain't gonna happen) I'd love to hear it.

[Tom Joad]

3. Bush has been at this war for years. Support the Jim McGovern bill to end the funding.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

It's not even within the realm of possibility.

[jwirr]

12. It happened in Vietnam. It can happen here to.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. No, it didn't.

Congress pulled funding for the South Vietnamese government, not the American military. That is not the same thing at all.

[Tom Joad]

19. Why?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Several reasons.

First, this area of foreign policy, especially wartime military decisions, has historically been in the domain of the executive branch. Overcoming that obstacle, especially in the Senate would be nearly impossible.

Second, the concept of actually defunding an American military operation while it is in progress will be extremely unappealing to a lot of congresscritters, especially those who were recently elected in marginal districts. It would enable Bush to blame the Democrats for whatever disaster resulted from his failure to withdraw reasonably on his limited allowance.

Third, it is a horrible political minefield.

I think there is a tendency around here to equate the American public's dissatisfaction with Bush's conduct of the war with criticism of the premise of the Iraq war itself. This is pretty dangerous territory, politically speaking.

But getting down to brass tacks, there is simply no stomach on either side of the aisle for cutting off funding without some kind of agreement from Bush about exactly what the fuck we're going to do. This will change when he comes back to beg for money again, but for the time being he still holds a lot of the cards. It sucks, I know, but that's the political reality of the situation.

[jwirr]

29. Then Impeachment is looking better evey day.

[Tom Joad]

32. The Vietnam war was defunded.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. No, it wasn't.

The South Vietnamese government was defunded - not the US military.

[Tom Joad]

2. Waiting for Bush to end the war. Bullshit! Stop the funding!

[madeline_con]

10. Won't troops already there suffer?

This issue really confuses me. :shrug:

[spanone]

18. NO, they can call it Funding the Withdrawal. NOT Withdrawing Funding.

[Tom Joad]

20. If Bush is forced to withdraw the troops? NO.... see this

Language of the bill will give funding to feed the troops and grant funding to withdraw the troops.

See more here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/end

Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) has introduced legislation to stop funding the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq: H.R. 4232, the "End the War in Iraq Act of 2005."

The bill would allow Defense Department funds to be used only to provide for: the safe and orderly withdrawal of all troops; consultations with other governments, NATO, and the UN regarding international forces; and financial assistance and equipment to either Iraqi security forces and/or international forces.

In addition, the bill would not prohibit or restrict non-defense funding to carry out reconstruction in Iraq.

A BILL
To prohibit the use of funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `End the War in Iraq Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DEPLOY ARMED FORCES TO IRAQ.

(a) Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq.

(b) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the use of funds to--

(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq; or

(2) ensure the security of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by--

(A) carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and other international organizations; or

(B) providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq.

(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available to any department or agency of the Government of the United States (other than the Department of Defense) to carry out social and economic reconstruction activities in Iraq.

(d) Definition- In this section, the term `Armed Forces' has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code.

[pinto]

23. This is from Nov. 2005. (109th Congress) Has it been re-introduced?

[Tom Joad]

33. Not sure, but i expect it will.

[Contrite]

4. Redeployment, ala Murtha.

"Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq."

And don't forget, Murtha is talking about "fencing the funding".

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Unfortunately, Murtha doesn't get to tell Bush what to do.

The next war apropriation is going to be a mess for Bush, but there's damn little, legislatively speaking, that Murtha or anybody else can do about it right now.

Politically speaking, they can make it clear that any escalation, surge, or whatever will result in extreme difficulty next time he has to ask for money. That seems to be what's in play here.

[jwirr]

13. The next time is now - he is going to ask for another supplement.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. When?

He doesn't need another supplement now. He just takes it out of the current spending. This moves the next one up, but it still won't be for a while yet.

[LittleClarkie]

16. And they can make it damn clear that Bush and Bush alone owns whatever

inept crapola he decides to dish out in regards to Iraq.

[Tom Joad]

21. Do you support the current level of troops in Iraq?

Why do you think that should be funded?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. It's already BEEN funded.

Ya, I support the current troop levels in Iraq. Everything's going swimmingly. We're building schools, haven't you heard?!? Militias might be beheading the teachers, but they were probably all tenured libruls anyway.

:eyes:

[nini]

5. LOL

They can't win for losing with some folks. They will never get credit for anything with some people. It's a start isn't it?

:eyes:

[William769]

14. Thats a shame too, isn't it.

[Cameron27]

24. Damned straight!

(with both comments)

[Gregorian]

6. Think of it as mulitple stages.

This was a blow to Bush's most recent move, which we knew was coming.

Stopping the war is a relatively separate issue. I'd even go so far as to say that escalation could occur while stopping the war at the same time. But it's pretty nonsensical in this situation they're in.

One thing at a time. Actually, two things at a time. Stop the 9,000 troop addition AND stop the war.

[nini]

30. yep... that's right

There's a process and we all want it to happen quickly - I think the first day in power isn't going to be enough time to solve all of it at once.

[Guaranteed]

8. They said it's time to bring the war to a close. That's the right frame. nt

[Old and In the Way]

11. It was a pre-emptive strike against the Bush surge.

Bush moves forward with escalating the war at his own personal risk. My sense is that the new Democratic majority in Congress know they have the public on their side of the debate. I suspect that Bush is being given a clear idea what the unsaid "or else" will be.

I think that Bush is having his options closed out on him. The military has flatly told him there aren't enough troops for the surge in the foreseeable future and any off-budget supplementary appropriations bills are not going to be passed without an exit plan in writing. So Bush is going to be stuck treading water...and that won't be acceptable to either Party. The only joker in the deck is a sudden move against Iran. If Bush does this, there will be a crisis in our government, the likes I've never seen. All bets are off as to what happens next, IMHO.

[malaise]

15. I disagree

they followed CIndy. They know the mood of America.

[MzNov]

17. We react, we're wrong, we don't react, we're wrong. Ferrchrissakes nt

[Say_What]

22. .."{your} solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops"...

OUCH!!

From the article:

...Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

...Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/10680195/detail.html

[Blue_Roses]

31. you just like to stir the pot

:eyes:

I don't think you really give a rats ass ...

haven't seen you back on this thread since you started it.