Wednesday, February 07, 2007

YES, SOME DEMOCRATS REALLY DO WANT TO END BUSH'S DISASTROUS WAR... FOR REAL, NOT JUST SYMBOLICALLY OR NONBINDINGLY

>


I was naively disappointed when not all the freshmen Blue America collected money to help elect last year didn't rush to join the Progressive Caucus. In fact, several of "our" freshmen rushed to join BOTH the New Democratic Coalition of Corporate Whores and the Blue Dogs. Of the freshmen who we contributed to, the ones who joined both the reactionary caucuses are Kirstin Gillibrand, Michael Arcuri, and Patrick Murphy. I guess Patrick gets a pass since he also was an original co-sponsor of Murtha's redeployment legislation.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is much bigger than either of the 2 right-of-center Democratic caucuses. It is chaired by Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey. The new freshmen who joined this year include Mazie Hirono (HI), Yvette Clark (NY), Stephen Cohen (TN), and Keith Ellison (MN), all of whom are also co-sponsors of legilslation by Murtha and or Woolsey to stop Bush's escalation.

This afternoon the Progressive Caucus issued a statement of position on Bush's Iraq catastrophe.
Over the last four years, the insurgency in Iraq has strengthened and sectarian violence has increased. Furthermore, the current situation on the ground in Iraq is grave and rapidly deteriorating. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has determined accordingly that a predominantly military approach is no longer a viable solution to stabilizing Iraq.

We are committed to bringing all of the U.S. troops and military contractors in Iraq home in a six-month time frame as part of a fully-funded redeployment plan.
 
More specifically, we oppose sending additional U.S. troops and military contractors to Iraq and favor binding votes to block President Bush's escalation of U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

We believe all appropriations for U.S. military involvement in Iraq must be for the protection of our troops until and during their withdrawal within six months of the date of enactment of this limitation and accelerating the training and equipping of additional Iraqi security forces during that six-month time frame. The President has left the Congress few alternatives other than to use the power of purse spelled out in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution to curtail U.S. military operations in Iraq.

Finally, we are opposed to establishing any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, support rescinding the President's Iraq war authority, and support greater diplomatic and political engagement in the region, while ensuring that the Iraqi people have control over their own petroleum resources.


Like many Republicans, the New Democratic Caucus (aka- Ellen Taucsher's Republican-lite Brigade) and the Blue Dogs, both creatures of the corporately-owned DLC, want to appear to oppose the war, while not doing anything at all to stop it. The Progressive Caucus sounds like they're right on the money. We're going to be a lot more selective in 2007 and 2008 about who we raise money for.

3 Comments:

At 5:23 PM, Blogger Jimmy the Saint said...

Howie,
I know a read something a month ago about Kirstin Gillibrand. I forget where it appeared, but in the article or letter, she basically said she joined either the Blue Dogs(or the other corporate whore thingy) to be a fox in the henhouse type thing. Will she follow through on her promise? I don't know, but we can only watch and wait. Hopefully she is playing the DLC crowd for fools.

 
At 9:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From now on, I'm of the opinion that anyone who says "All options are on the table" is a danger to world peace and will not have my support unless they are willing to tell us exactly what those options are.
Participating in a UN or NATO action?
Preventive war?
Unilateral preemptive nuclear strikes?
Nuclear war?
Preemptive bombing of anyone the President says is a threat?
Just what are those options????

Journalists, are you there? If they will not name their options, that says that they are tacitly accepting the current Bush doctrine of preemptive aggression. If they won't say what the options are specifically, e.g. in relation to Iran, then do they repudiate, as a general principle, the Bush/Cheney doctrine of preemptive strikes, which is our current policy?

 
At 5:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

THe US military showing off "evidence" of Iranian meddling can simply be read as the Bush Admin's failure to secure the borders - and ultimately the welfare of our troops and the country's citizens.

Case & Point - Securing the borders is something that should have been accomplished a long time ago through diplomacy and survelliance.

How has the Bush Admin performed on this issue? Evidence of Iranian arms in Iraq would indicate that Bush has not done his job as a diplomat. Could we then assume his incompetence to be strategic? Could we say that Bush is more interested in geopolitics that the well being of Iraqis and US troops?

Would like to see a good, fair analysis of what has Bush accomplished on the diplomacy front with Iran. Probably wouldn't take too long.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home