I would add to David Swanson’s excellent summary below that Barak Obama Tuesday introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 Fact sheet here. http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130 obama_offers_plan_to_stop_escalation_of_iraq_war_begin_phased_redeployment_of_troops/index.html The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
Suggested Actions:
Rep. Raul Grijalva, CD 7, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq caucus (65 members), is working hard on our behalf to end this occupation. He is listed as a cosponsor on Woolsey’s HR 508, but not yet on Nadler’s bill, HR 455. You can call his Tucson office ( (520)622-6788) to register your thanks for his work and his cosponsorship of Rep Woolsey’s bill, and to ask him to also cosponsor Nadler's HR455. Both bills are referred to the House Armed Services Committee,
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, CD8, sits on the House Armed Services Committee. Please call her office ( 520) 881-3588 ) and urge her to vote the bills out of committee and onto the floor of the house when they come up for review. Please also urge her to cosponsor at least one of the three house bills David Swanson discusses below, and to join the Out of Iraq Caucus. She has said publicly that we must get out of Iraq, a surefire applause line in CD8. Joining the Out of Iraq caucus is how she can help make that happen.
Rep. Ed Pastor, CD 4, also a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He voted against the initial Resolution approving the war in Iraq, but has not yet joined the Out of Iraq caucus Please urge him to do so, and to work with the OOI caucus to support rep. Nadler’s bill as an amendment to the supplemental spending bill when it comes before the committee. (602) 256-0551
gerry
The Bills That Can End the War
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/nadlerbill
By PDA Board Member David Swanson
Summary
Senator Feingold held a hearing on the topic yesterday and plans to introduce a bill today to end the war by denying the President the money to continue it. http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_redeploy_factsheet.html Congress Members Lynn Woolsey, Jim McGovern, and Jerrold Nadler have bills in the House to do the same. But the bills are not all the same.
Congressman Nadler's bill, H.R. 455, crafted as an amendment to a supplemental spending bill, may very well be the best crafted piece of legislation. If the supplemental cannot be voted down, this bill can be added to the supplemental, thus making a yes vote on the supplemental a vote to end the war this year. Bush would have a choice between signing a bill to end the war, vetoing a bill providing the money he needs to continue the war, or going outside the rule of law in a manner that even Congress might be disturbed by.It does not cut off funding. Rather, it limits what any Iraq funding can be spent on to : (A) the continued protection of members of the Armed Forces who are in Iraq pending their withdrawal ; and (B) the safe and orderly withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq pursuant to a schedule that provides for commencement of the withdrawal not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and completion not later than December 31, 2007.
McGovern's bill includes exceptions for guarding the embassy and for the Army Corps of Engineers that Nadler should add to his. McGovern's bill is here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/mcgovernbill No number yet.
Woolsey's bill includes provisions for a range of needs, including health care for our veterans. Woolsey's bill is a complete plan for Iraq, and therefore immune from numerous criticisms and subject to numerous criticisms. You can read about it at
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/woolseybill
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Feingold's bill is the best-
We were discussing this on another blog. Personally, I think Feingold's is the best and has the real meat to get us out, Barack's I have concerns with...it appears more fluff than substance and more of a political move because he is running for President (why didn't he support Feingold's withdrawal bills in 2005 and 2006?). I particularly don't like the provision on sharing of the profits of Iraqi oil (why share? It's their oil, they should keep it...shows the U.S. is really about to the world) and I don't like that he does not address the funding in the clear, specific manner in which Feingold does. Barack's plan allows too much wiggle room for the Bush administration and he doesn't say what % would be redeployed and WHERE by May 2007 versus the "brigades" in 2008.
Feingold is addressing funding and that is what has to happen to end this war.
On the blog, you will get more response if you don't force people to get an account but keep it open with word id security to avoid spammers.
Cheri
From Doug Page, Tucson Tikkun
Rev Gerry: We went to DC to march and to lobby Gabby. We came away a determination to leave no stone unturned to get our troops out now. As we understand it, Bush cannot veto bills that cut off funding. So it is important that we support such measures.
Non-binding resolutions and bills subject to veto may be useful to raise awareness and to gain momentum, but cutting off funding is the only way to be immediately effective.
We think that it is important to stop letting Bush frame the issue as the "War" in Iraq. The War was won years ago. We have all been reassured that Iraq cannot and will not manufacture WMD. Saddam is gone and can no longer hurt his own people or anyone else. We Democrats should declare victory, congratulate Bush (holding our noses as we do so) and concentrate on ending the disastrous ongoing military occupation of Iraq. Democrats must use words that state the truth of the disastrous military occupation of Iraq. Nobody, except Cheney says it is working, and nobody has any persuasive plan to make military occupation work. It cannot and never has. It is military stupidity to urge that it can. See the article in Harpers for February by Edward N. Luttwak for all of the military reasons why it is stupid. It cannot serve doves, hawks, Israelis, Democrats, Republicans, neocons or anyone except arms manufacturers.
Doug Page
Gerry - I'm organizing at a very progressive church. I'm looking to join forces with others. My efforts so far have been towards organizing for massive street demonstrations.
I hope to mobilize 100's (1000's?) of folks who, like me, have sat on the sidelines until now.
I have Tom Rawles coming to Tucson to speak on the evening of March 6. He is the Mesa councilman who is not standing for the pledge in protest of the war. He is a republican, actually.
Are you supporting the March 17 demonstration marking the 4th anniversary of the war? The March 6 event is primarily to raise awareness for the March 17 event.
I would be interested in meeting you and picking your brain as to how I can best support the cause.
Steve
Post a Comment