Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

And you're all ga-ga over this??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
DancingBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:56 PM
Original message
And you're all ga-ga over this??
Has ANYONE read this thing?

What a toothless piece of garbage.



SA 2087. Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith,Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XV, add the following:

SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive Strategy.--The reduction of forces required by this section shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process.

(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.--After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:

(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.

(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.

(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.

(d) Completion of Transition.--The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008.



SA 2088. Mr. REED proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2087 proposed by Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Durbin) to the amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military actvities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, as follows:

At the end of the amendment add the following:

This section shall take effect one day after the date of this bill's enactment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OnceUponTimeOnTheNet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. read and digest in morn bookmark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. What Would Make It Toothier?
It seems like a reasonable document to me - but I'm not an expert on such things.

The problem is that Bush will ignore this - or any similar document. Which will be the proximal cause for the Republicans getting the ball rolling on impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Their reduction in forces could be 1 unit.
The amendment clearly allows for our continued occupation of Iraq. The amendment requires no action at all by the executive branch for 6 months. What exactly is going to be different six months from now? IT IS YET ANOTHER FRIEDMAN UNIT for crying out loud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiaCulpa Donating Member (741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's not so much the document(wording) itself,
as it is the leverage against the staunch Bush supporters that Harry Reid will have with this maneuver tonight. I'd much preferred he had done it with the original legislation to bring about the end of the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. Do you see a reasonable alternative? 9 month redeployment, limited presence,
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 09:22 PM by pinto
international involvement -

"the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process."

- a clear timeline -

"Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act."

"The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008."


"This section shall take effect one day after the date of this bill's enactment."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. For some, it appears that nothing is better than something.
I don't get that philosophy myself, but it is surprisingly common. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. a) this is nothing; b) authorizing more war is something I want nothing of.
Pay attention: the fillibuster will hold and this will go nowhere. Ah yes, let the reality of that sink in. Now about this amendment: it authorizes another 120 days of whatever we are doing now, and then it requires the shameless liars and criminals in the white house to do something rather vague that amounts to a 'reduction', while continuing to occupy Iraq. Gee, no I am not in favor of this bullshit. Nothing would be better. Nothing as in no funds no money no authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
21. "Nothing" means no more appropriations bill brought to
the floor for a vote! No appropriations bill, no money for the war, the war ends. In this instance doing absolutely NOTHING is the quickest way to end the war. The Democrats control the AGENDA. Nancy and Harry can both agree not to bring any more funding bills up for a vote. Starve the fire by depriving it of oxygen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. What exactly us going to be different 120 days from now?
The amendment allows another 120 days for them to do whatever they want, and then they just have to lie about what they are doing. The amendment legitimizes the continued occupation of Iraq. Why would you expect this regime to pay any attention at all to the spirit of this bill? There is som much wiggle room there they do not even need a signing statement to work around it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I am afraid that this is the Democratic position. Not to end the occupation,
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 PM by Dhalgren
but to change the conditions (at least on paper) so they can SAY that they ended it. You wait. The occupation of Iraq will be changed so as to make the occupation cosmetically different and the Democrats will wave their arms and cheer that they have ended the "war". We are alone, man, completely alone...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Yup.
The War Party seems to be firmly in control. It is a very bleak assessment of the situation. I am not surprised at how many here are grasping at other interpretations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I think, considering that most likely NOTHING AT ALL will get passed,
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 10:19 PM by wienerdoggie
that allowing 120 days to give commanders on the ground a chance to form an exit strategy and figure out how to do force protection for remaining troops and move equipment out is pretty reasonable. They're not going to be out next week, or in 2 months--that's not going to happen. That would be the "precipitous withdrawal" that the RW keeps yammering on about, to scare the American people into thinking Dems are behaving rashly. This is reasonable and responsible, under the circumstances, and I like the international-mediation idea. This will be as good as it gets--make peace with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. There is no 'exit strategy'. There is logistical planning for withdrawal.
That planning exists in some virtual file cabinet in the pentagon, good to go. Nothing will be different next month, in three months, or in six months, 'on the ground'. The same conditions will exist. Six months from now the same exact arguments will be made claiming that 'we cannot afford to leave'. Your are being had once again, once again another Friedman Unit is being established, once again the next six months are critical. How many more six month units are we going to get suckered into supporting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Yeah. Nothing will be different 120 days from now. Yet, reducing the troop levels,
even incrementally - which is the only way it will happen one way or another - will decrease US personnel casualties, clearly pull back our presence in the civil war and *may* provide some impetus to a broader, realistic international involvement in a political solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. They could abide by the letter of this law by sending one soldier back home.
He could be replaced by 10,000 mercenary units. This is a bullshit stunt. I refuse to play. I am not 'on team D' and refuse to cheerlead crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k8conant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. No more funds = no more war
This is too limited. Sadly, that may be all these senators have to offer. I will say again and again that the way to defund the war is simply offer no funding. * can't veto what isn't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I favored de-funding as well. Across the board. Wasn't to be. I think the Reed-Levin amendment is
a good alternative. Troop withdrawal won't happen overnight, we all know that, it can't be done - yet in lieu of cutting the funds (a House function), I see a clear time-line, with the international standards set in the amendment, a good move. And it will pass if we stand for a simple majority vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:16 AM
Response to Original message
16. Yup. I'm Proud Of My Dems. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnceUponTimeOnTheNet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
18. k&r. The Senate could end it now, just don't bring up the funding bill.
Precipitous withdrawal. Chaos. How much gets left behind. What about the contractors and mercenaries getting out. I say we dub Chalibi the President, stick him in the new fortress called the Embassy, guard him for 120 days while we pull our stuff outa there. Then the spy and Iraq have to stand on their own feet and figure it all out, without us getting in the way.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. Get our soldiers out first, then cut the funding..
it will have to be in that order, you know the criminals in charge will see to the chaos and destruction just to make the Democrats take the fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
19. You are right - but we (the American People) are not doing much


Besides bitching....

I think the majority of Americans would be happy with the PERCEPTION of something getting done. And, I wonder if this is just a move to improve the ratings of Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Agreed...
there isn't much REAL pressure on yet, no mass riots, no mass sit-ins. I don't suppose we'll see anything like that until there is a draft again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
20. I am glad to see them taking a stand
It's a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
24. Bread & Circuses
This is nothing but theater for the foolish voters back home during the Campaign Donation season. The Democratic voters have been so starved for anything from the Dems in Congress that THIS will seem like a feast to them. "SEE!!! We're really, really trying to stop the WAR, but the Republicans are just too BIG and we're so little, but we're really trying. Please send us more money"

BTW: This resolution IS the Hillary/Obama Plan for "Ending the War"....send a few post surge troops home and call The Occupation something else.

Make NO MISTAKE about it.
The decisions have already been made.

*The Occupation WILL continue under the next DLC Democratic administration.

*The "Oil Law" WILL be shoved down the Iraqis' throats with a gun barrel.

*The Imperial Palace (Green Zone) and the Permanent Bases WILL remain to protect the privatized oilfields.

*YOUR children will BLEED & DIE to protect Exxon's record profits.

*The BILL (over 1Trillion$) for the theft of the Iraqi Oil WILL BE PAID by YOUR children and THEIR children. (WE are still paying off Reagan's taxpayer S&L bailout. Your children will pay for Iraq PLUS INTEREST)

Nothing short of electing Dennis Kucinich will stop the above.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC