the best anti-war bill yet

[welshTerrier2]

please sign the petition (see below) to show your support for HR4232 often referred to as the "End the War in Iraq" bill ...

you can read about the bill right here ...

Note: the following was received in an email today from PDA

Dear wt2,

We have just voiced our support for a resolution in Congress that will help cut the funds for the Iraq War.

We hope you will join us in signing the linked petition from Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) supporting HR 4232.

click here to sign the petition

PDA has been working and organizing support for HR 4232 since Rep. McGovern introduced this important bill in November of 2005.

Listen to Rep McGovern live from Camp Democracy: Click here.

Congress has appropriated more than $300 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq. Simply stated in monetary terms, estimates are that we are spending $8 billion per month in Iraq with no end in sight. That equates to $2 billion per week, or $267 million per day, or $11 million per hour.

Small wonder that 60% of the American people are opposed to current U.S. policy in Iraq.

PDA is working hard to change this failed policy.

Please sign the petition and vote for candidates in the November general election who support HR 4232 and will speak out to cut off all funding for deployment of US troops in Iraq and for the removal of all funding for the occupation of Iraq.

http://pdamerica.org/petition/mcgovern-petition.php

H.R. 4232 would end all funding for the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq.

HR 4232 would in no way prohibit nor interrupt U.S. non-defense funding in support of Iraq's social and economic reconstruction, including support for democratic institution-building, elections, and the restoration of Iraq's infrastructure.

HR 4232 provides for the safe, orderly, and honorable withdrawal of the United States from military operations in Iraq. By continuing U.S. support for the economic and social reconstruction of Iraqi society and the financial and material needs of Iraqi security, it maintains our moral and political obligations to the Iraqi people, while concretely promoting, supporting, and providing for greater multilateral engagement in these serious tasks.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We hope you will sign the petition!

In peace,

The PDA Team,
Medea Benjamin
Angie Bobst
Sherry Bohlen
Tim Carpenter
Steve Cobble
Mimi Kennedy
Steve Shaff
Cindy Sheehan
Kevin Spidel
David Swanson
Rev. Lennox Yearwood

[Mass]

1. kick.

[ProSense]

2. This is a pretty good bill

My Congressman is a co-sponsor. It cuts off funding for current and future deployments so the number of troops in Iraq cannot be increased. I'm pretty sure most Democrats are against sending additional troops to Iraq, but to make it so, it's important to cut off funding. The exceptions are funding for the provisions of Kerry-Feingold. It doesn't go as far as Kerry-Feingold, which sets a date for withdrawal, layout the steps needed for transition and in the aftermath, and doesn't link the transition/withdrawal to a democratic Iraq.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DEPLOY ARMED FORCES TO IRAQ.

(a) Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq.

(b) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the use of funds to--

(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq; or

(2) ensure the security of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by--

(A) carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and other international organizations; or

(B) providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq.

(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available to any department or agency of the Government of the United States (other than the Department of Defense) to carry out social and economic reconstruction activities in Iraq.

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

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h4232ih.txt.pdf">PDF

[Mass]

3. Point 2 does not involve American troops. That is all the point.

It says explicitely that funds will not be used for American troops. The view is that, if there is no funding for that, the troops will have to withdraw, just as was done in VietNam.

In my opinion, this bill is better than Kerry-Feingold, because it states clearly what the goal is: withdraw troops, without any other possibilities.

I am sick and tired to hear senators say they are for a deadline but would "keep the troops after the deadline if necessary". They have to stop being afraid to look weak on defense and accept that, if American troops are the problems, we have to withdraw them ASAP and find other ways to help Iraq (the international conference that was proposed by Kerry is a good thing. A FIRM deadline to withdraw ALL troops would be great). Proposing a deadline and having to push it every six months because Bush did not do anything is not a good thing (because the execution depends on Bush). Modifying a bill that was reasonnably good to get a few more senators to vote for it (what happened a few months ago) is definitively not the way to go, particularly when the bill has 0 chance to pass in the first place.

This said, dont get me wrong. Kerry/Feingold is the best bill we have in the Senate, and a lot better than what the Dems proposed yesterday following the Third Way report.

[ProSense]

5. Don't agree

that this is better than Kerry-Feingold. This bill simply addresses cutting off funding for additional troops. It also makes a big leap: that other countries will be willing to take responsibility for the U.S. created quagmire and provide full security while the U.S. engages in a "safe and orderly" withdrawal and Iraq transitions to democratic rule. It also doesn't say ASAP. What is the time frame for a safe and orderly withdrawal? What does that mean?

[Mass]

6. You misread the bill. It is not only additional troops. It is all troops

in Iraq that cannot be paid using this money.

It also does not say that other troops have to step up for troops to withdraw. It just says that, if this happen, we can help them financially.

In fact, I think this bill is exactly what needs to be added to K/F for it to work. Tell the Iraqis we will stop paying for a deployment in Iraq (and therefore that the US forces have to leave) and they may step up to the plate. If they do not anyway, what do you propose: that we stay until they decide to do something? Forever?

Obviously, this is dangerous politically speaking because it could be depicted as not supporting the troops, but it is probably the only way to stop this mess.

[ProSense]

7. No I didn't

"This week, I am introducing a resolution to prohibit the use of tax payer funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. The bill, however, will allow funds to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops. It will allow us to support transitional security provided by other countries - including international organizations like NATO and the United Nations. The bill will also allow for continued support for Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq - as well as funding for reconstruction efforts. This is not a cut and run strategy. Rather, it is a way to support efforts that I believe can be more helpful in creating a more stable Iraq. But, the bill makes clear - no more U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq.

http://www.house.gov/mcgovern/pr102505outofiraqbill.htm

No where in this bill does it say cut funding for the troops that are there. In fact, the bill continues to fund the troops until the U.S. gets other countries to commit to security so they can withdraw.

[welshTerrier2]

8. "cutting funding for the troops that are there"

i believe you are misinterpreting the following line from the bill:

"Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq."

my understanding of the phrase "continue to deploy" is that the bill would cut funding for ongoing offensive operations for troops already stationed in Iraq ... it's important to note that the phrase distinguishes between two uniquely separate actions: "deploy" versus "continue to deploy" ...

if you read some of the extended discussion about the bill, it's clear the intent of the bill is to restrict spending of funds for anything beyond the "excepted" activities ... these include:

(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq; or

(2) ensure the security of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by--

...... (A) carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and other international organizations; or

...... (B) providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq.

as for not including a "date certain", such as Kerry-Feingold's unacceptable July, 2007 date, the funds would become restricted IMMEDIATELY upon passage of the bill ... the "date certain" is implicitly defined as "Immediately" ...

[ProSense]

9. No misinterpretation

The excepted activity is where the leap occurs!

(a) Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq.

(b) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the use of funds to--

(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq; or

(2) ensure the security of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by--

(A) carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and other international organizations; or

(B) providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq.

In order for a "safe and orderly withdrawal" to commence, the troops just can't lay down their weapons and start packing (they will still be attacked and still have to defend themselves), a security force (this bill specifies an international security force, but that will take time) has to be in place for them to do so!

[welshTerrier2]

10. you're seeing conditions that are not in the bill

first, i don't agree that withdrawing US troops will be attacked but that's really neither here nor there ... let's accept your premise that they will be attacked ... the bill clearly states that funds can be used for them to defend themselves "WHILE THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF WITHDRAWING" ... that's what is meant by a "safe and orderly" withdrawal ... no one expects them to just sit around getting shot at ... the point, though, is that all efforts should immediately go into making a safe and orderly withdrawal ...

and your second point was needing to put in place a security force ... i believe you've made two misinterpretations about this issue in the post you made ...

the first is that you seem to be suggesting that creating the international security force is a "PRE-CONDITION" for withdrawal of American troops ... the bill states that FUNDS can be used to provide "FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OR EQUIPMENT" to Iraq security forces and international forces ... it does not make that a condition for withdrawal ...

the bill also does not say that American troops must remain in Iraq to provide that assistance ... the section of the bill referring to security forces provides an exception for the allowable uses of FUNDS, not troops ...

the basic idea of the McGovern bill is to cut-off funding for the use of US troops in offensive operations in Iraq ... money can only be spent to safely withdraw troops (immediately upon passage) or can be spent to provide aid to the Iraqi government and Iraqi or international security forces in Iraq ... the bill calls for immediate, unconditional withdrawal from Iraq of all US military as quickly as their safety allows ...

[ProSense]

11. Withdrawal,

even in Kerry-Feingold, is a defensive, not offensive posture.

the first is that you seem to be suggesting that creating the international security force is a "PRE-CONDITION" for withdrawal of American troops ... the bill states that FUNDS can be used to provide "FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OR EQUIPMENT" to Iraq security forces and international forces ... it does not make that a condition for withdrawal ...

You are making a leap! If the troops withrdraw before such a force is in place, why would international forces go in after the fact of U.S. withdrawal, leaving a big security gap?

Your statement doesn't correlate to this:

"This week, I am introducing a resolution to prohibit the use of tax payer funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. The bill, however, will allow funds to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops. It will allow us to support transitional security provided by other countries - including international organizations like NATO and the United Nations. The bill will also allow for continued support for Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq - as well as funding for reconstruction efforts. This is not a cut and run strategy. Rather, it is a way to support efforts that I believe can be more helpful in creating a more stable Iraq. But, the bill makes clear - no more U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq.

http://www.house.gov/mcgovern/pr102505outofiraqbill.htm

You are implying that the bill calls for withdrawing U.S. forces and introducing security forces at a later date, after U.S. troops are withdrawn.

[welshTerrier2]

12. i don't think a transnational force is a possibility

i'm not suggesting that foreign forces would, at this late date, be willing to enter Iraq ... i think the idea is very unrealistic ... the truth is that such a force would have almost zero chance of being effective even if a "coalition of the willing" could be formed ...

and there is certainly not a pre-condition for withdrawal stated or implied in the McGovern statement nor in the bill itself ...

look at the final line in the excerpt you posted ... could it be any more clear? McGovern stated: "NO MORE U.S. BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ" ...

[ProSense]

13. "NO MORE U.S. BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ" ...

That's the end goal, but there is nothing in the statement, direct or implied, that mentions that all troops will be out before the security forces are in place, which is the reason for the statement directly preceding the "no boots" comment:

...This is not a cut and run strategy. Rather, it is a way to support efforts that I believe can be more helpful in creating a more stable Iraq. But, the bill makes clear - no more U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq.

That certainly doesn't imply that the troops will be out before security forces are in place.

[Totally Committed]

4. Done.

We need to GET OUT NOW.

This is a decent bill, and should get our support.

TC