WOOLSEY CALLS FOR BOLD MEASURES TO BRING OUR TROOPS HOME, NOT CAPITULATION

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22886

WOOLSEY CALLS FOR BOLD MEASURES TO BRING OUR TROOPS HOME, NOT CAPITULATION
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-05-24 17:11. Congress

From the office of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey

-Calls on Congress to stand up to President's "blind arrogance"-

Washington, DC - The first Member of Congress to call upon President Bush to develop a plan to bring the troops home from Iraq, and a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) today lashed out at the Iraq supplemental bill:

"This capitulation proves once and for all that we cannot negotiate with this President. He won't listen to his military generals on the ground, he won't listen to outside experts like the Iraq Study Group, he won't listen to the Congress, and worst of all he won't listen to the American public.

"Faced with this blind arrogance we have no other choice but to take bold steps to confront this President and to hold him accountable for his continued failures in Iraq. If we refuse, if we continue to take piecemeal steps such as today's vote, then we must accept our complicity in his continued occupation of Iraq.

"The American public voted Democrats into power for one simple reason - they trusted us to act boldly to hold this President accountable and to bring our troops home. So far we are failing the very trust that they have placed in us. But more importantly, every day that we allow this occupation to continue we are failing our brave young men and women who are serving honorably and professionally in Iraq. And we are failing their families here at home, who, while struggling to keep their lives and families together, are forced to worry whether their loved ones will come home alive, and if so in what condition.

"Today is not an opportunity to claim victory, or to give bellicose speeches for partisan gain. Today is an opportunity to grieve for the soldiers who have sacrificed their lives for this President's failed Iraq policy, to stand by our nation's sons and daughters who suffer through the irreparable physical and mental wounds of war, and to grieve for the lives that we will continue to lose so long as this President refuses to bring our troops home, and continues to send our young men and women to die for his failure."

[RiverStone]

1. First K&R!

Hopefully she will inspire others - leading by example... :applause:

[liberaldemocrat7]

28. Go here http://endthewar.dmocrats.org make a phone call.

Go here http://endthewar.dmocrats.org make a phone call.

[solara]

2. K&R!!!

:kick:


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT IMPRECATE INCARCERATE :banghead:

[Tom Joad]

3. and a three

[ClayZ]

4. Four! K and R

[dweller]

5. high - 5 !

dp

[EVDebs]

6. Lynn's my rep in Congress. I'm so proud of her and wish others in Congress would join her ! K&R

[HowHasItComeToThis]

22. Lynn is my rep too

A truly brave woman.

[erinmblair]

24. She's my Rep too!

Lynn makes me feel so proud. ;)

[WillyT]

7. Now THAT... Is How It's Done !!! - K & R !!!

:kick:

[Cameron27]

8. k&r !

[BuyingThyme]

9. kcik

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. K&R!

[krkaufman]

11. Ha! I thought this was a post Re: James Woolsey, and was ready to rip his head off.

[ChiciB1]

25. My First Thought Was Henry The Eighth!! Seriously I Did Hear Her

on C-Span a couple of weeks ago and she was very upset about this stuff! We have ONE people, we have ONE!!

[Gregorian]

12. Until then, I'm devastated.

My day, and then some, is in a state of mourning. I haven't felt this kind of bottomless pit in my stomach for a long time.

There are a few good people out there. Hopefully we can stop the madness. But where there's money to be made, you can plan on a fight.

[magellan]

13. Woolsey totally gets it!

Every last point!

:applause:

[DearAbby]

14. I too am mourning

my country, for her people. I feel it is gone. Money trumps peace, we were told this. Now it is loud and clear. Money trumps peace.

[bonito]

15. K&R

[Pastiche423]

16. I'm confused

Rep. Woolsey voted YEA on:

On Agreeing to the Resolution

BILL TITLE: Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007


Can someone explain it to me like I was a six year old?

[dweller]

17. is the vote in and on record?

please point to a link if you have one.

dp

[Pastiche423]

19. I got this from an earlier thread

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll418.xml

Is this a different bill?

[cynthia]

23. This is a motion to discuss it.

Another thread explains how this was a maneuver to get the Democrats to vote FOR the appropriation of funds for the Iraqi occupation. Very confusing to me, however.

[Danascot]

31. Woolsey voted nay

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml

[derby378]

18. Good on ya, Lynn!

:toast:

[pberq]

20. Kick & Nominated

[pat_k]

21. Don't see "impeach." What "bold measure" do ya have in mind? (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

27. I guess there's just no pleasing some people.

Just out of curiosity, who is your rep?

If he or she has a better track record of standing up to this administration and the Iraq war than Woolsey does, I'll eat my fuggin' hat.

[pat_k]

35. I'm still waiting for an answer, What "bold measure,". . .

. . .other than impeachment, is capable of forcing Bush and Cheney to do anything they don't want to do? As long our so-called "leaders" evade that question, we will keep asking it.

The snipe about my U.S. Rep. is an evasion. Not that it's relevant, but he happens to be Mike Ferguson, a little fascist that's the target of "http://www.dumpmike.com/">Dump Mike" campaign. Since NJ-7th is one of the few truly competitive seats, you may want to consider making a contribution.

Although we have confronted him on impeachment (so he can't claim that his constituents aren't demanding it), he is not a key target of the campaign to make impeachment a reality.

WRT to the subject at hand, complaining, investigating, finger-wagging, and imploring him ("calling on" him) to "change course" accomplishes what? As long members submit to Pelosi's "off the table" declaration of surrender, complaining in "stronger terms" will accomplish what?

Calling for "bold measures" to stop the criminal insanity of the outlaws in the WH while refusing to impeach is like "opposing" murder, but refusing to prosecute murderers. Sorry. Doesn't cut it.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Well, perhaps you should inform Rep. Woolsey's office that you'll be in charge of approving

every press release she gives.

Her track record "Doesn't cut it". Sez who?

[pat_k]

37. Still waiting. . .

[Warren DeMontague]

38. So am I.

Do you even know who Lynn Woolsey IS?

[pat_k]

39. ??

Not sure what you mean by "so am I."

Do you mean that you too are waiting for an answer to the question "Rep. Woolsey, if you aren't calling for impeachment, what 'bold steps' are you referring to? How does {bill-res-whatever} hold him 'accountable'?"

Your initial rebuke led me to believe that you objected to the question. If you don't object, we're in accord.

WRT to your condescending question, "Do you even know who Lynn Woolsey IS?"

Yes. I am extremely familiar with Lynn Woolsey. Although I currently live in NJ, I am from LA and have family in the bay area.

She is an admirable figure. Although she did not stand with the 16 courageous members who objected to the illegitimate Florida electors on January 6th, 2001, she was among the 31 heroes in the House who voted to reject the illegitimate Ohio electors on January 6th, 2005. She was also among the six initial co-sponsors of Conyers H.Res 635 (she signed on 12/22/2005, along with Capps, B.Lee, Payne, Rangle, & Waters). As noted in the OP, in January of 2005, she introduced H.CON.RES.35 calling for the withdrawal of the troops.

But of course, you are undoubtedly aware of all this. It should not come as a surprise that she is a key target of the impeachment lobbying effort. She has a moral compass and the seniority that goes with 7 terms. We know she is capable of becoming powerful champion for impeachment.

On January 6th, 2005 she stood up for the principle of consent -- the sole moral principle on which our constitution, and therefore the nation is founded. She fought the good fight then. Bush and Cheney have used the power they stole to nullify the principle of consent with their fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive. Impeachment is the ONLY weapon capable of rescuing our broken constitution. Tragically for the nation she, like Conyers, is continuing to submit to Pelosi's "off the table" edict.

When our leaders are failing us, it is up to us to hold their feet to the fire. Our heroes don't get a pass. It may not be fair, but we hold them to a higher standard because they are most likely to rise to the occassion.

Even if Congress had overriden Bush's veto, it would have made no difference. Unless it suited the WH, they would have ignored the "timetable." Bush and Cheney could care less about the laws passed by Congress -- past or future. They've been turning Americans into torturers and illegally spying in plain sight for years. They'll just keep doing as they please, thumbing their noses and daring Congress to impeach and try to stop them. To believe they will wake up one day and play by the rules is foolhardy. And I don't think that Lynn Woolsey is a fool.

When declarations such as "we have no other choice but to take bold steps to confront this President and to hold him accountable," are not followed by a demand for impeachment, it begs the question:

"If you aren't calling for impeachment, what bold steps are you referring to? How will {some action} hold him 'accountable' when he's proven, over and over and over that he believes himself to be above all law? And why shouldn't he believe it when he and cheney have been committing grave crimes in plain sight with impunity for years?"

It is a question I will keep asking staffers, and when possible members themselves, each time their statements beg the question -- i.e., when they accuse Bush of intolerable crimes or declare their intent to hold Bush accountable, but refuse to impeach. It is a question that I will keep asking those who applaud their irreconcilable statements and positions.

I am well aware that it is the "good guys" who are speaking in such terms. I am well aware that it is the "good guys" who are applauding. That fact makes the question all the more critical. The "good guys" are the ones who are best equipped to see that, unless they are willing to demand impeachment, their rhetoric is empty and the actions they call for are impotent gesture.

If the Democratic caucus was using every means at their disposal, I'd applaud their efforts. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I can't applaud when they refuse the use the political "nuke" we gave them. I can't applaud the pretense that the pea-shooters they are fighting will are all they've got.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. What I "object" to is that every statement from the woman that does NOT explicitly call for

impeachment is therefore somehow suspect.

You're right, we agree on much, and you're right, she has an admirable track record.

And if I, personally, didn't support impeachment... well, I would have to pick a different username, wouldn't I?

In practical terms, perhaps you're right- perhaps Bush's disregard of congress and law would have rendered timetables meaningless. But if what you want is real results versus empty gestures- practical results presumably being the removal of Bush and Cheney, I don't have to tell someone as well informed as you that impeachment in the House would accomplish nothing more than a symbolic victory. We would be no more likely to remove Bush from office in the Senate than Bill Clinton was likely to be removed, despite the vast differences in justifications. So what, precisely, would having the House vote to impeach right now accomplish? Remember, now, you're the one talking about this being the only real world answer to the Bush Admin.'s abuses of power. But, really, as things stand now- barring additional revelations brought public through the processes of congressional subpoenas and investigations-- we both know that Bush (and Cheney) wouldn't be removed from office. So again, you're talking about a victory which would be less substantial than passing an Iraq supplemental with timelines, because at least the Iraq bill would have given them a law that they would be forced to ignore. Again, I'm not saying the House shouldn't do it, "it" being pursue impeachment- but if your point is that an immediate impeachment process and vote in the House is the only way to "stop" Bush... well, that's not going to stop him, either.

And I don't think not mentioning the i-word at every conceivable opportunity amounts to "not willing to impeach". As we both know, much fur-flying hullaballoo has been made about Pelosi "off the table" statement (note that a "statement" is not the same thing as an "edict"). While I certainly think that some of our democrats in Congress aren't doing their jobs, (as evidenced by recent events) Lynn Woolsey isn't one of 'em. Short of one ridiculous, pandering vote regarding forcing schoolkids to recite "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, I generally trust her to do the right thing at the right time.

I question, sometimes, the logic of going after the "good guys" because they're not good enough, versus criticizing our members of congress who pull the kind of crap we saw this week. Perhaps on tactics but not essentials we differ. But you are right to call upon all our democrats for bold actions, I think. Peace.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. That's my Representative!

Makin' us proud, as usual. :patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot:

[SpunkMonkey]

29. Mine too...

She's makin' me proud to live in Petaluma. I called her office this morning and was pleasantly surprised to hear that she was planning to vote against the bill, and this speech helps cement my support for her. In fact, it's probably the ONE thing that has kept me from removing myself from all DNC email lists this afternoon.

I'm just waiting for a DAMN good reason from the bill's supporters to justify their votes. And the "giving Bush full ownership of the failure" excuse is pure BS.

[truedelphi]

30. Lynn is a firm believer in the "stolen election"

of 2004.

She is always one to oppose Bush, and was courageous in speaking out against the Iraq war when those considered mightier than her (Like Sen Clinton) were so gung-ho.

[montanto]

32. well, finally. a ray of sunshine. n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[feminazi]

34. Excellent!!

And my rep, Zoe Lofgren, voted against it also.

[BeHereNow]

40. Personally, I am SICK & TIRED of "bold" statements that lead NO where.

I swear, we are like of herd of mules being led
by a thousand carrots dangling on a thousand sticks.
None of it ever leads anywhere.
Has no one else noticed this fact?

It's one "THIS is it!" after another and
its been happening for years.

How can ANY thinking person continue
to fall for this charade?
AS IF anything has or will change.
Too many scandals, crimes and outrages to even
count anymore, and still it continues.

BHN

[pat_k]

41. You're not alone. In Bush World, only impeachment is "it". . .

The thugs in the WH weren't satisfied with the massive power of the American presidency. They openly and arrogantly break our constitution and our laws. They've transformed America into a war criminal nation that spies on its own citizens without warrant.

It is lunacy to pass another law for them to break, believing "THIS is it!"

It is lunacy to believe "THIS is it!" when we hear some new revelation. A thug doesn't care if you catch them in the act if you've made it clear you have no intention of hauling them off to jail. When war crimes haven't prompted action, why would the thugs in the WH worry about getting "caught" on anything else?

Thugs will do as they please. They only stop if forced to stop.

When an official betrays the public trust or violates our will (i.e., our laws; our constitution; our popular demands) the only sure way to stop them is to impeach and remove.

In the face of such intolerable crimes against our constitutional democracy, it is reprehensible surrender without a fight. But that is precisely what the Democratic leadership is doing when they refuse to impeach/accuse. Whatever the outcome, we must fight for our own self-respect.