Wow. Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

Coupla clue-phone calls for general consumption:

1. The bill today was a political victory, but won't stop the war even a tiny little bit. It has provisions that allow Bush to basically ignore the bill, and leaves open the ability for Bush to keep troops over there after the deadline, so long as they are "training Iraqi police" or "killing al Qaeda operatives." That's pretty much the description now, so in essence, nothing happened here besides the Dems actually getting enough votes to pass something with "Iraq" in the title. Big, sure, but changes nothing.

2. Most here are anti-war, and yet the House Reps who have represented that stance best - Lee, Woolsey and Kucinich to name three - get called "traitors" for not voting 'yes' on a toothless bill. These people have led on this when no one else has, when too many of us mistake online screeds and emails to like-minded screeders as "activism." The 14 'no' voters have worked for four years to end this, and have offered many times many bills to do so. This thing today is as weak as water, compared to their legislative offerings, and they were right to vote as they did.

3. CodePINK protests Democrats because Democrats need to be pushed. The very fact that this bill is considered some kind of watershed is evidence of that. Go ahead and protest the GOP; you might as well protest a brick wall for all the good it'll do. THE WHOLE POINT of getting the Dems elected is because we are their base, and they can be pushed by us. Few groups have done better work than CodePINK, anywhere, period.

So, to recap:

* The bill won't save a single life.

* Your anti-war leaders in the House are not traitors.

* Activists on the Left get the best results from protesting the Democrats.

Kinda seems self-evident...until you peruse this place today.

I suppose this'll get locked, too, as it basically is a continuation of about 19 flamewars. Go ahead, lock away, I'm taking the weekend off from this joint anyway. When a mod calls Lee, Woolsey and Kucinich "traitors" in broad daylight, something has become deranged on DU.

Lot of bodies under the bus today...bodies of people who were heroes yesterday. Pretty God damned shameful if you ask me, but hey, you didn't.

:eyes:

already. (That's a compliment to you).

H. R. 1234
To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 28, 2007
Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately.


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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The insurgency in Iraq has been fueled by the United States occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent United States military bases.

(2) A United States declaration of an intention to withdraw United States troops and close military bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight aggressors and those who have supported United States policy.

(3) A United States declaration of an intention to withdraw United States troops and close military bases will provide an opening in which parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations toward a peaceful settlement in Iraq.

(4) The cost of withdrawing United States troops from Iraq could be as low as $10 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office.

(5) A United States shift in policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the situation in Iraq.

(6) The United Nations is best equipped to build a political consensus in Iraq through the crafting of a political agreement.

(7) The end of the occupation of Iraq creates a political environment that enables the world community to assist the United States in an orderly transition.

(8) The United Nations is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize peacekeeping troops.

(9) The United Nations can implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation of Iraq and begin the transition to international peacekeepers.

(10) The United Nations can field an international security and peacekeeping mission, but such a mission cannot take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties.

(11) Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi Government, with the assistance of the international community.

(12) Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the United States occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution.

(13) There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq.

(14) A reconciliation process that brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences.

(15) It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds.

(16) The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the United Nations and with the participation of parties that can create, participate in, and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances.

(17) The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process.

(18) All factions and all insurgents not associated with al-Qaeda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks, Syrians, and Iranians.

(19) Achieving peace requires a process of international truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.

(20) A reparations program to assist Iraqis is essential to enable reconciliation.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States that--

(1) the United States should end the occupation of Iraq immediately, simultaneously with the introduction of a United Nations-led international peacekeeping force pursuant to an agreement with nations within the region and which incorporates the terms and conditions specified in section 1;

(2) the Department of Defense should use readily available existing funds to bring all United States troops and necessary equipment home while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force;

(3) the Department of Defense should order a simultaneous return of all United States contractors and subcontractors and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi Government;

(4) the United Nations should be encouraged to prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to be deployed to Iraq, replacing United States troops who then return home;

(5) the United States should provide funding for a United Nations peacekeeping mission, in which 50 percent of the peacekeeping troops should come from nations with large Muslim populations;

(6) the international security force, under United Nations direction, should remain in place until the Iraqi Government is capable of handling its own security;

(7) the Iraqi Government, with assistance from the United Nations, should immediately restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq and rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis;

(8) the Iraqi Government, in an act of political sovereignty, should set aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets and abandon all efforts, whether at the behest of the United States or otherwise, to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization;

(9) the Iraq Government, in an act of political sovereignty, should set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the United States invasion and occupation;

(10) the Iraqi Government, in an act of political sovereignty, should strive for economic sovereignty for Iraq by working with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the International Monetary Funds or the World Bank;

(11) the United States should initiate a reparations program for the loss of Iraqi lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property, which should include an effort to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution; and

(12) the United States should refrain from any covert operations in Iraq and any attempts to destabilize the Iraqi Government.

SEC. 3. DISENGAGEMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM IRAQ.

(a) Withdrawal of Armed Forces- Not later than the end of the 3-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, all United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq shall be completely withdrawn from Iraq and returned to the United States or redeployed outside of the Middle East.

(b) Prohibition on Use of Funds To Continue Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq-

(1) PROHIBITION- Funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy members or units of the United States Armed Forces to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) does not apply to the use of funds--

(A) to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq pursuant to subsection (a);

(B) to ensure the security of Iraq by carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the United Nations, and other international organizations; or

(C) to ensure the security of Iraq by funding the United Nations-led peacekeeping mission.

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

a bill to pull out the troops now would never have passed the house...and then what? It will not pass in the Senate...but even if it did, it would be vetoed..and then what? At the very least, this process will hold up the funding..and that is something..maybe the only thing that has any hope of ending this war sooner rather than later.

that most Americans tried to vote out of office last round. It would also hold up the funding for the poor, starving Pentagon.

IBTL if it turns into a flamewar. You're totally right. Pass the glue.

Glue yum yum. I'll have mine with a turpentine chaser. :9

No wonder you're afraid of getting locked.

perfectly.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

on Bill Press show and Stephanie miller today complaining about the Dems making noise and then sitting on their hands

scuttlebutt around town is that the Dems are as useful as the Repubs...

Dems don't get their act together, both repubs and DEMS could be looking at a 3rd party making significant inroads into becoming a majority

go third party.

Not because I'm opposed in the slightest to the concept, but because 3rd parties are structurally impossible in our 2 party country.

If you can name me one time a third party won any power in this country I might reconsider. Under the "way things are" 3rd parties are always relegated to their one function, that of spoiler.

My plan is this. I'm supporting Kucinich, because if progressives across the country will support him, he can win 25 to 30% of the delegates to the convention. The other big three will split up the rest, and no one will arrive at the convention with enough delegates to put them over the top. This will give Kucinich a lot of leverage to get some progressive planks into the platform, and he could be the king maker so to speak, which could really benefit progressive issues.

If Gore enters the race I will support him.

they can override a veto? We need the WH before we actually can do what we want. I guess I do not see how we can complain all the time when it is not possible to win the ultimate goal. I would love to pull out of Iraq tomorrow but how do we realistically force it? Impeachment would be one way but I sat through months on end of Watergate hearings and if they had not found a way to charge Nixon with tax evasion it would have been even longer. Bill Clinton's impeachment also was not an overnight thing. He did not even have to leave the office. Frustrated - damn right. But I am just as frustrated with those who continually expect the impossible. Molly was right - raise hell until they finally get tired of it and listen to us.

who voted no, but I disagree that this supplemental won't help end the war, and I see no reason why Codepink's tactics shouldn't be questioned. Personally, I don't think alienating even the most liberal dems, is a great idea.

And please enlighten me about the good work that Codepink has done. What precisely have they accomplished?

When will we learn not to air our internal laundry so that we can KEEP a fargen majority?

make the same mistake twice.

As usual, Mr. Pitt, yours is the voice of reason and justice.

Thanks for posting this today.

We really need to remember that Lee, Woolsey, and Kucinich are not traitors -- they are the true patriots.

We vote for these people. Give them money. A lot of manpower and legwork. You would think that they could at least do what we elected them to do.

Kucinich and the rest stood for our principles. How many soldiers will die over the next 18 months? How many innocent Iraqis?

I agree, most Dems NEED to be pushed. Hard.

I was gonna stop drinking for a while, but I see a fresh bottle of Stoli on the horizon.

You really did pick a bad day to quit. :)

the bill today was a political sham. At least the Democrats got something passed.

and if not for a few reasonable people ( like you) I would have been long gone from here

and that is the truth

One for the post and one for keeping you around!

:hi:

:(

:hug:

when he has spent decades earning one of the best reputations as an investigative journalist.

There is something afoot at DU. People are getting away with targeting good Democrats and honest reporters.

nt

There's surely a herd instinct at play here ... rats abandoning the good ship "Do The Right Thing" under the 'leadership' of Vichy corporatists. So much for the lip service given to principles.

:shrug:

:beer: Kick back and have a beer. Be thankful that you didn't trash the great democratic movie 300!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

LOL

I see what you mean. It's bad lately.

He said that this is a start to ending this war. He said that it will not make a difference in 2 or 3 months, but in 6 to 8 months this will be big. Let's get what we can and go forward. On edit: He also commented that with the election still 18 months away the Pugs are hanging tough on legislation with W, but that that will relax as the election gets closer. He was talking about the good for both sides so he was fairly non-partisan.

:kick:

Well said, WilliamPitt!

http://www.aoe.vt.edu.nyud.net:8090/~cdhall/img/Idiocy.jpg

and another YES.

Not surprised to see you get it, Will.

The big idea here is to end the damn war.

I think we have been had again

This is a very political punk band (my kids love them) -- the singer made it very clear that our message has to go not just to the Repubs but to Nancy Pelosi and the Dems, because THAT's how you change things. We aren't going to change the Republican party (though humiliating a few and putting some in jail or at the very least out of office would be nice for me), we have to PUSH PUSH PUSH the Dems.

(This band even has a song about PNAC, if you can believe that. Gave me the chance to explain what it is to my 11 year old. He was fascinated.)

--the united states is not leaving iraq for a long time. we`ll end combat operations but there will be troops in at least one or two bases and the in emerald city.

the bill is a statement and that is all it is. there are so many loopholes it really is`t worth voting for

:thumbsup:

>When a mod calls Lee, Woolsey and Kucinich "traitors" in broad daylight, something has become deranged on DU.

Worth repeating.

Traitors? Disgusting.

Thanks for posting this Will!

Well said and greatly appreciated. Have a nice weekend!

I especially don't understand the re-writing of history, where it is being alleged that Code Pink has never had any actions against Republicans. Excuse me? A poster specifically brought up Hastert, but Code Pink in Chicago has certainly done actions against Hastert.

You are correct, Dems need to be pushed -- they were elected to oppose this current regime. Lee, Woolsey and Kucinich "traitors"? For shame.

The venom that has been directed at CodePINK and some of the staunchest anti-war members of congress has shocked me.

I have yet to meet a single person who has changed their position on Iraq to one of SUPPORT FOR THE WAR because of the actions of CodePINK. Personally, I can't imagine someone saying, "Well, I was against staying in Iraq until I saw that lady with the pink tiara. But damn, she pissed me off. I don't care how many more Americans are slaughtered, and I don't care how many more billions of dollars we pour into that hell hole. I'm gonna teach those CodePINK ladies a lesson."

If people think that other tactics would be more successful, then they should personally pursue those tactics.

Alla that. I'd like to say more, but it would go against the rules. Something is rotten in Denmark.

Have a great weekend.

of the people that voted for her!!!Since her husband is a contractor who is making millions off this war how can we trust her??????

you finally noticed? :wow:

and those are your words.

and the sentiments. I couldn't agree more! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

plan to obstruct it.

Democrats pass a reasonable bill and Republicans kill it. There is no difference between Republicans killing the funds and Democrats doing it, except the Republicans will get the blame if it's done this way.

Just kidding...........

You rock Will, Our Government is Insane. EOM

They remind me of notches counting the number of kills on the wooden handle of a six shooter .

How will anyone have true facts when it comes to what they , the Bush admin calls success ?

They lie about everything so we can't relay on achieved bench marks and what will be decided as the end to the occupation ?

I don't believe for one second that bench marks will push the US installed Iraqi government to take over the battle , after all we brought this battle to them in the first place .

If I were a troop in Iraq these political steps would not mke me feel hopeful , the only thing that would inspire hope in me would be climbing aboard a plane on it's way the hell out of there with no possible means of returning .

I really thought the new Democratic Congress was going to make a difference, particularly on the ILLEGAL war in Iraq . . . that I was so wrong is very disheartening, to say the least . . .

same shit, different day . . .

I have noticed this for a few months. After all this time, I unsubscribed from Move On. Never thought I would do that. But after the dishonest "voting" about Pelosi's bill last week , I wondered who had bought MoveON. This was a dirty move which was used by some Dems in Congress.

Who cannot see the reality on the ground.

One of the saving graces of the Democratic Party and of Liberal Progressives is the fact that they do not see the world in binary terms. Life is not black and white. Never has been. Never will be.

One has one's principles and one follows them regardless of whether they are 100% on "one side" or the other.

It's called reasoned debate and discourse. It's called disagreeing on specifics but agreeing on the larger goals. At the same time--and this is the sticking point-- it is about not being willing to sacrifice one's larger moral and ethical stance for some political gamesmanship or pseudo-intellectual chess game.

It is the Achilles heel of the movement, as platforms and viewpoints are not easily digested and cannot be encapsulated in soundbites. The details are lost to the simplistic and superficial MSM types who can only speak in binary.

In the end, though, people realize that the views espoused by the likes of Kucinich, Lee, and myriad others on various issues, while not 100% spot on, are better than the drek spewing forth from the bloviators in charge.

What I think you're hoping for here is to keep the tone fair and civilized so we can continue to build our own humanity and community -- a real force to be reckoned with. Good hearts, good souls, noble motives.

Thanks for continuing this conversation even with the threat of the posts getting locked.

All of us know at heart that there's no excuse for ever calling any of these fine people that name. Very few deserve that attribution and none of them are Dems.

Kucinich, Lee, and Woolsey took a stand and made the point that the bill wasn't enough to achieve a pullout sooner. That is one of the things they do well -- they rarely compromise on this.

To call them traitors because they want us out immediately instead of more than a year from now is destructive.

I'd like to see the original poster apologize, and anyone else who supported any part of that attribution. Then it's up to us to forgive as we all have the capacity to say and do dumb and destructive things from time to time. Hopefully we all grow out of it with time.

But meanwhile, I do like the fact that this is a topic of conversation that keeps popping up -- instead of quietly letting it slide --

To do so would be be a silent invitation for more of the same.

Group dynamics that focuses on the behavior is important. Otherwise there remains a corrosive threat to DU's spirit.

,...this place was so intolerant and petty and mean.

The whole thing is confusing to me, to be honest. I just don't see what we get out of it. And now chimp is spinning us as not funding the troops when there is more funding in this bill than he asked for. It's almost like the worst of all worlds: we ask for nothing, get nothing and get blamed for it. I voted "no" on the move-on poll, and am standing with Barbara Lee and the rest on this one.:-(

Good Summation.

This Bill does NOTHING to End the War.
It Guarantees that the WAR will continue, and taxpayer money will continue to pour into the pockets of the Profiteers!

The ONLY change is that the Democrats have now LITERALLY BOUGHT this War.

I stand with Kucinich, Lee, Woolsey.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

I mean, who convinced you, or are you sniffing right now, because you're usually MUCH more conservative (as in "let's don't rock-the-boat and LOOK bad) than this:

CodePINK protests Democrats because Democrats need to be pushed. The very fact that this bill is considered some kind of watershed is evidence of that. Go ahead and protest the GOP; you might as well protest a brick wall for all the good it'll do. THE WHOLE POINT of getting the Dems elected is because we are their base, and they can be pushed by us. Few groups have done better work than CodePINK, anywhere, period.

:)

How did this happen! (I mean really I just hang out on DU to advise him just how wrong he is!) When the Democrats are acting like traitors I am SO on the case. I see a lot of work being done. I'm waiting for the "compromise" on the attorney scandal and then oh boy you will hear about what IDIOT FUCKING TRAITORS they are to common sense and a chance to nail this admin. This vote was so not it. I don't get the hubbub. They are at least AT LAST trying to set some deadlines and those that aren't going with it actually want the troops home. Some are playing games, some are going with their conscience, some are doing what they think they can to actually get something done. At last they've done something. That is a victory for THESE Dems.

AND I do admire you Will for standing up for CODE PINK. I admire anyone that protests this war.

Recommended.

Are we just the older ones? Or are we the ones who have a better notion of how Washington does and doesn't work?

:)

lol

good things in it for Americans. Bush will be sure to pass this wonderful bill. What a political victory for the House Dems! And those traitors, those Progressives, who have stood their ground for years. I'll bet none of them ever suspected that Dear Leader would later promise to VETO this important piece of legislation! :sarcasm:

I more than agree with WilliamPitt, and would like to add a bit of David Lindorff, another writer who isn't wearing blindfolds:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/873

that these investigations are more than political theater.

And Will Pitt, you are one of the reasons I come here. Thanks for your insights.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to have the votes necessary to sustain a veto proof bill we will need to go after the pugs also. In the House it makes sense to push the Democrats but in the Senate it is the pugs that will eventually have to come with us if we are going to stop this war through legislation.

As relates to the US "involvement" in Iraq there is a serious error in the language being used in Congress and faithfully parroted in the US media and following from that a grave misunderstanding about what went down today, what exactly was voted on and more importantly what was entirely omitted.

As was first put forth by the Bush adminstration and drummed into Americans heads via the corporate media the term that folks came to use to describe the pending invasion into the energy rich region of the Middle East "War on Iraq" and it is the same term used erroneously as the occupation grinds on. There is little questioning of this framework within the accepted political dialogue in Congress or amongst the pundits.

There is a small problem with that term that leads to a great deal of confusion. It is quite simply a lie. There is no "War on Iraq" nor has there ever been one.

There was an illegal invasion.

There is an illegal occupation.

There is a concentrated mass slaughter the likes of which the planet has not seen in decades.

There are massive amounts of militaristic corporate embezzlement.

And, lastly, there is a long list of war crimes.

Now what was voted on today when presented in these terms, which more accurately reflects the recent history and the everyday reality of the Iraqi people and more accurately represents the way the rest of the world sees the US invasion and occupation, may bring us to a very different set of conclusions about the validity of Pelosi's Plan. It certainly begs the question, "Why is it that the true nature of the United States ongoing atrocities in Iraq is not given the open debate it deserves?"

In the numerous speeches and discussions regarding this bill where was/is the term "War Crime?"

So tell me again how is this $124 billion bill going to stop the violence being visited upon the Iraqi people?

This is a bill that merely gives Bush over $100 billion to continue "The War", with no real strings attached. It gives him a free hand to attack Iran. There are scores of loopholes in it which would allow troops to remain in Iraq past Sept 2008; all Bush needs to do is claim the troops are there not for "combat" but rather for other purposes (such as fighting Al Qaeda, or training Iraqi troops, or guarding US installations, & or other task descriptions which are just word games to avoid calling it "combat").

The only thing in it that is a "step" towards ending "The War" is vague toothless language aiming at a pullout of combat troops by Aug 31, 2008.

This bill is not a step towards ending "The War." It's just a way that allows for some posturing as critics of "The War" until the 2008 elections, even while their actual votes support & fund "The War." It imposes no real restrictions on Bush, and is in practice no different than what he himself would most like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x488778

And doing so in a manner that is much more civil than myself. I've found myself becoming ever more angry at these empty, meaningless, political gestures that the Dems are continuing to do, all the while berating the anti-war folks for not supporting them, or for being uppity, disruptive, or *gasp* unfashionable.

Sometimes I wonder where I am anymore. DU has changed radically from what it once was.

...but not by you, Will.

This war belongs to my party now, too - and I am deeply ashamed/embarrassed/righteously pissed-off at those who bought into it.

I haven't forgotten the names of those who signed the original IWR, and I won't forget the names of those who voted today to let it continue. I don't buy into the apologist excuses as to why it was a necessary vote.

I stand with Dennis Kucinich and the others who opposed this bill. And with Code Pink. And with Will Pitt - thank you for this thread.

:patriot:

Since when are anti-war Dems considered traitors? Sheesh...I stand with them against this immoral, illegal war based on lies. Guess that makes me a traitor, too. At least I can stand with a clear conscience.

It's been a long day.

Thanks for your consideration.