Congresspeople on Record for Withdrawing from Iraq

The purpose of this thread is to record the public positions of elected Representatives and Senators who favor withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

In the subject line, please include the person's name and date they went on record.

In the body, include any supporting information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=158&topic_id=2581

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1156076#1156157

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/01/16/meehan_calls_for_timetable_on_iraq_pullout

Meehan calls for timetable on Iraq pullout
After trip, notes erosion of security
By Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent | January 16, 2005

Deteriorating security and rampant anger toward US troops in Iraq is emboldening insurgents, according to Representative Martin T. Meehan, who returned from a fact-finding trip yesterday calling for an exit strategy that would significantly reduce the number of troops there over the next 12 to 18 months. Meehan, speaking at a Logan Airport press conference following a weeklong trip to Iraq and Afghanistan with fellow members of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was only able to travel through the country in armored convoys and visit US military bases, unlike his last trip to Iraq in August 2003, when he said he was free to walk the streets and speak with average Iraqis.

The marked change in the country's security, and polls that he said show 70 percent to 80 percent of Iraqis want the US to leave, demonstrate the need, Meehan said, to define an endpoint to significant US troop involvement in Iraq. A concrete plan to bring ''the majority" of the approximately 150,000 troops in the country home by summer 2006 will eliminate the perception, Meehan said, that the United States is an occupying force in Iraq, and splinter disparate insurgent groups who have set aside their differences to battle Americans. ''We really need to let the Iraqi people and the world know that we are not going to be an occupying force forever," the 48-year-old Lowell Democrat said. ''And that's why we need to set out a timetable that makes sense." Meehan, previewing a policy he will detail in a paper to be released early this week, said a smaller, more mobile military force should remain in Iraq after summer 2006, to advise and support Iraqi security forces.

During his trip, Meehan met with troops from Massachusetts and senior military commanders, as well as Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, and Iraq's interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, who, he said, ''wants to work with the United States to develop some kind of a timetable" for the departure of US troops. Most striking, Meehan said, was the heavy guard under which he was forced to travel in Iraq. Meehan spent two days in the country and returned each night to Jordan to sleep. ''It's a contrast from the last time when I was in Iraq," Meehan said, ''when I drove down the streets and had Iraqi people giving the thumbs-up and saying 'Thank you very much,' 'We're with you,' 'Great job.' I didn't see any of that this time."

Meehan said he was heartened by the troops' bravery and morale, and by what he said were the arrival of new shipments of Kevlar vests and armor for their Humvees. But Meehan said the Pentagon must now give troops a date when they can plan to return home. ''What they need and what the American people need is to see light at the end of the tunnel," Meehan said. Meehan's proposal comes as others in Washington are considering plans to reduce the number of US troop in Iraq, 19 months after President Bush declared the end of major combat operations there.

more......


US Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat of Lowell, spoke to reporters yesterday in Logan Airport after returning from a fact-finding trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. (AP Photo)

In a world of distractions, the subject of this thread reminds us not to ignore the concept of priorities.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1832445&mesg_id=1832445

Posted with permission from Rep. McGovern's office.

GEORGE MCGOVERN AND JIM MCGOVERN
Withdraw from Iraq
By George McGovern and Jim McGovern | June 6, 2005

WE WERE early opponents of the US invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, once American forces were committed, we hoped that our concerns would be proven wrong. That has not been the case.

The United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of our forces from this mistaken foreign venture.

The justification for the war was based on false or falsified information. What had been initially characterized by the Bush administration as an uncomplicated military operation has turned into a violent quagmire. Our leaders underestimated not only the insurgency, but also the deep-rooted ethnic divisions in Iraqi society.

There are no clear answers from the administration or the Congress on how long our forces will need to stay in Iraq, what the anticipated costs in human life and treasure will be, or even what would constitute success.

Instead, many of our policymakers seem resigned to an open-ended occupation. Former Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz has told Congress that we will be there for at least another 10 years. It is common to hear even some who voted against the war say, ''now that we're there, we have no choice but to stay."

We very much disagree. Calls to maintain the status quo echo the same rationale used to keep us in Vietnam. To those who contend that we would weaken our credibility if we withdraw, we believe that the nation's standing would greatly improve if we demonstrate the judgment to terminate an unwise course.

Our continuing presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency and gives the insurgents a certain legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world. We know from our own history that armies of occupation are seldom welcome.

There have been elections in Iraq, and yet it remains unclear whether the different political, ethnic, and religious factions want to work together.

One thing, however, is clear: Washington cannot determine Iraq's destiny. It doesn't matter how many times Condoleezza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld visit. It doesn't matter how many soldiers we deploy. The myriad factions in Iraq themselves must display the political will to demand a system of government that respects the diversity that exists in their country.

There are no easy answers in Iraq. But we are convinced that the United States should now set a dramatically different course -- one that anticipates US military withdrawal sooner rather than later. We should begin the discussions now as to how we can bring our troops home.

The United States should accelerate and pay for the training of Iraqi security forces with the help of Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab allies. We can begin drawing down American forces to coincide with the number of trained Iraqi forces. By that measure, we should bring 30,000 of our troops home now.

President Bush should consult with the current Iraqi government and other Arab nations about the necessity for an Arab-led security force to complement the Iraqis in the short term. Again, the United States should finance this effort.

We should also work with the United Nations to solicit ideas and assistance from the international community on how we can best disengage.

There are no guarantees that militarily withdrawing from Iraq would contribute to stability or would not result in chaos. On the other hand, we do know that under our occupation the violence will continue.We also know that our occupation is one of the chief reasons for hatred of the United States, not only in the Arab world but elsewhere.

Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of. After two years in Iraq and the loss of more than 1,600 American soldiers, it is simply not enough to embrace the status quo.

We are not suggesting a ''cut-and-run" strategy. The United States must continue to finance security, training, and reconstruction.

But the combination of stubbornness and saving face is not an adequate rationale for continuing this war. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is time for lawmakers in Washington -- and for concerned citizens across the nation -- to demand that this sad chapter in our history come to an end and not be repeated in some other hapless country.

The path of endless war will bankrupt our treasury, devour our soldiers, and degrade the moral and spiritual values of the nation. It is past time to change course.

George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee for president, represented South Dakota in the US Senate. Jim McGovern (no relation) represents the Massachusetts 3d Congressional District.

I cant decide which newscaster to watch tonight for this "breaking news" - Brian Williams or Bob Schieffer.
NOT

Just asking because I haven't seen anybody put forward a real withdrawal plan. They all require some form of security and governance first.

Proposing withdrawal without a contingency security plan is impracticle.

Have you read Meehan's 15 page white paper? Even moderate rethugs like McCain have given it a favorable review.

I know that he has lined up two rethug co-sponsors for his resolution, but not sure if they have yet agreed to be on record, so I will not list their names.

All except maybe Lieberman. The non-withdrawal withdrawal plan is a distraction. Call Bush's entire Iraq & Bush Doctrine foreign policy a disaster and demand an entire change of course. But if you don't support immediate withdrawal, don't say you do. And if you support security, reconstruction and governance in Iraq in order to get out, call it the Democratic Plan, not the "stay the course" or "tweaking" the Bush plan.

If you believe that the USA will EVER leave Iraq voluntarily, you are either an idiot or hopelessly naive - plain and simple.

All of the rhetoric you hear about an exit strategy or withdrawal plan is just that - rhetoric - and nothing else.

Ask yourself two questions:

How important do you believe it is for the USA to have fourteen permanent military installations halfway between the Oil-rich Middle East and the LNG-rich Caspian region right now?

How important do you believe these installations will be over the next ten years?


Get a grip, folks! 'Murrica ain't goin' nowhere.

We're never going to get out unless the Bush Doctrine reasons we went in are exposed. And we're never going to get out calling plans withdrawal plans when they aren't.

Noun 1. sophistry - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

Agree 100%.

Is that a bumper sticker?

Straight off their website, it's a .gif.

However, they have many other downloadable graphics, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=16193&mesg_id=16193

before the start of the war he's been criticizing the Bush administration and trying to call them on their lies - not many people listened.

I'll look for a position paper. Assistance welcome.

Bernie in all probability has held this position for quite some time, but this post on his new (within the past month) website has no date.

=============================================================

http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp#iraq

An End to Bush's Policy of Preemptive, Unilateral War

The United States is now involved in a War in Iraq that seems to have no real direction and no end in sight. Sadly, U.S. service members, Iraqi civilians, and American taxpayers are paying the price for Bush's new preemptive, unilateral war doctrine.

This new doctrine upset centuries of internationally accepted norms of conduct. It is wrong to launch preemptive attacks on countries one doesn't like unless an attack from them is imminent. We know that was certainly not the case in Iraq. That's why traditional allies like France and Germany - both of whom supported the first Gulf War - refused to participate in George W. Bush's invasion.

The Bush Administration justified the war on the grounds that Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction development program and deceptive inferences that Iraq was tied to Al Quaeda. Both those claims have been shown to be unsubstantiated. Despite months of occupation, the Bush Administration has been unable to produce any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

One of the Administration's other claims has also proven completely false. In the weeks leading up to the war, the Bush people were claiming that American troops would be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people. This tragic miscalculation has led to beleaguered young Americans facing some two dozen attacks a day.

Now, with no exit strategy, Bush and his team have been locked in a quagmire with no end in sight. And the President's our-way-or-the-highway approach to our traditional allies has cost us desperately needed military and financial support from the international community. The financial cost to U.S. taxpayers is already over $150 billion and is certain to grow even higher.

The U.S. needs to repudiate Bush's preemptive war doctrine. We need to support our men and women in uniform but that doesn't mean blindly supporting Bush's disastrous Iraq policy. The U.S. needs to reach out to the international community through the United Nations to help police, rebuild, and restore sovereignty to Iraq in as fast a timeframe as we can.

Congressman Sanders voted against giving Bush a blank check to go to war. And he opposed giving in to Bush's demands to tens and tens of billions of dollars in war funding with virtually no strings attached.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-16-oppose_x.htm

Time for U.S. to withdraw
By Neil Abercrombie and Dennis J. Kucinich
5/16/2005

Forty-one months after the United States entered World War II, we had achieved victory in Europe. We've been in Iraq for over half that period. What reasonable person would say we have reached the halfway point in Iraq?

Today's troops are just as brave, patriotic and capable as their WWII predecessors. They have already accomplished much. They deposed and imprisoned a tyrant. They have given ordinary Iraqis the chance to shape their country's destiny.

Nevertheless, the military occupation of Iraq will not turn Iraq into a democratic nation. Longstanding rivalries will do more to shape that country's future than anything American troops can do. Those forces will not be controlled by American boots on Iraqi ground, no matter how many we put there or how long they remain.
...
Unlike World War II, where the enemy surrendered and the troops came home, there is no such prospect in Iraq. We must define an endpoint. We will soon introduce legislation to achieve that goal by bringing the occupation of Iraq to a close. The troops have done their job. It's up to Congress and the president to forge a policy worthy of their sacrifices.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/

International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in

America must return to its role as the most admired -- not hated -- nation. The doctrine of "pre-emption" must be retired, as well as the current aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy that makes our homeland less secure, not more. Our security will be enhanced by working with other nations and the UN instead of acting like an Empire, arrogantly undermining international agsreements such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, the Small Arms Treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Climate Treaty. I continue to work to implement two measures I sponsored in Congress: the Space Preservation Treaty, which bans space-based weapons, and a cabinet-level Department of Peace, to establish nonviolence as an organizing principle in both domestic and international affairs.

We must cut bloated and unneeded weaponry from a military budget that now almost equals the military spending of all other countries combined. The resulting peace dividend can then be invested in education, health care, environmental clean-up, urban infrastructure, Social Security, veterans' benefits, and other pressing domestic needs.

Read more:

Iraq
International Cooperation
Aid to Africa
AIDS
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Cuban Embargo
Department of Peace
Depleted Uranium
Haiti
Korea
Middle East
Military Spending
National Security
Nuclear Weapons
Veterans
Terrorism
Weapons and Non-Proliferation
World Hunger

(links at website are active)

Peace.



http://www.intelligencesquad.com/id118.html

Although, it looks like your upper end is about 100 too high or so.

That is a pretty awesome graph. It will be interested in seeing the offspring of such a "Father of all graphs."

Who's surprised that one of the first to voice dissent with invading Iraq would be a rethug? Actually, Ron Paul is more of a libertarian....

========================================================

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst030402.htm

March 4, 2002

Before We Bomb Baghdad.....

With our military actions waning in Afghanistan, the administration appears to be gearing up for a second phase in the Middle East. Although the Al-Queda threat has not yet been fully neutralized, political and popular support for a full-scale war against Iraq is growing. The President explicitly named Iraq as a target in his State of the Union address, and British Prime Minister Blair recently stated his backing for such an invasion.

Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It's simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests.

First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war before he proceeds against Iraq. Undeclared wars represent one of the greatest threats to our constitutional separation of powers over the last 50 years, beginning with our "police action" in Korea. This most sacred legislative function- the power to send our young people into harm's way- must be exercised by Congress alone, the body most directly connected to the electorate.

The undeclared wars waged by various Presidents during the last century represent a very serious usurpation of the legislative function, adding greatly to the rise of the "imperial Presidency" that we witnessed so clearly during the Clinton years. I'm always amazed that Congress is quite willing to simply give away one of its greatest powers, especially when it spends so much time otherwise trying to expand its powers by passing extra-constitutional legislation. The reason for this, I'm afraid, is Congress learned in Vietnam that wars sometimes go very badly, and few want to be on record as having voted for a war if they can avoid it. So despite all the talk in Congress of "supporting the President," nobody wants to really support him by doing the obvious and passing a declaration of war.

Constitutional questions aside, we have to ask ourselves quite simply whether it serves any national interest to invade Iraq. So often we lose sight of the true purpose of our military, which is to defend our borders against attack. Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions- all for more than a decade. We haven't done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we've done them because we want to protect our oil interests. Yet these actions have harmed the people of Iraq, not the Hussein regime. If anything, our policies serve to generate support for Hussein, who uses American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect attention from his own oppression. Sadly, we've made him a martyr in Iraq and much of the wider Muslim world, alienating many otherwise pro-Western Iraqi moderates in the process. I question the wisdom, and the necessity, of once again traveling 6000 miles to pick a fight with a third-world Muslim nation that is simply not threatening us.

Congress should not allow any administration to take our nation to war without the consent of the people. I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims who understand the necessity of our actions against Al-Queda, but who will object to an invasion of Iraq.

see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3799592

<snip>
t r u t h o u t | Statement
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech

We Stand Passively Mute

Wednesday 12 February 2003

"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

<more>

<link> http://truthout.org/docs_02/021403A.htm

You know when you step on somebody's toes, you are expected to apoligize and express or imply an intent not to do it again. I guess when you have an illegal war, you just deny it or ignore it. Is never admit you are wrong the new American ideal?

What about Woosley? McDermott? Jackson Jr? Waxman? Tubb-Jones??

Any help here?