Emanuel not entirely silent on Iraq, if you check press releases

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

http://www.house.gov/emanuel/pressreleases.shtml

Here is one:

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 26, 2006


Emanuel on Iraq Plan

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) released the following statement on a plan for American forces in Iraq:

“Our generals on the ground in Iraq have a plan for the withdrawal of American forces. The Iraqi government has a plan and timeline for the withdrawal of American forces. The outliers are the Republicans in Congress, who seem more focused on scoring political victories in America than on bringing our mission to a successful conclusion in Iraq. They want to see an open-ended commitment with an open purse.”"

Here are summaries of more that can be found at the link above"

6/28/2006
Emanuel to Administration: “Which is it?” - WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) released the following statement responding to the Administration’s mixed strategy for success in Iraq: “Among plans being ...(more)

6/26/2006
Emanuel on Iraq Plan - WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) released the following statement on a plan for American forces in Iraq: “Our generals on the ground ...(more)

6/23/2006
Emanuel Hosts Congress on Your Corner Friday, June 23rd at Six Corners - CHICAGO, IL—Following is Congressman Rahm Emanuel’s public schedule for Friday, June 23, 2006: Friday, June 23, 20064:00pm – 5:30pm Event: Emanuel hosts “Congress ...(more)

6/20/2006
Emanuel, Lautenberg Call on Rumsfeld to Cite Precedent - WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, U.S. Representatives Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) released the following letter to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: Following is text ...(more)

6/16/2006
Emanuel Applauds House Admin on Honoring Fallen - WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel released the following statement applauding the Committee on House Administration for erecting a monument honoring the fallen in the ...(more)

6/15/2006
Emanuel on Iraq Resolution - WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel released the following statement as delivered on the House floor during the debate on H.Res.861: “Mr. Speaker, since ...(more)

[noamnety]

1. So in June he was saying:

"They want to see an open-ended commitment with an open purse.”

And now, he wants not only an open-ended commitment, but also an escalation, and the democratic leadership has given assurances it will provide an open purse.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

2. Can you provide a citation for that position of Emanuel and also

on the position you attribute to the democratic leadership who have now sent a letter to the Pres on this?

[noamnety]

3. sources

open purse: “We will not cut off funding for the troops,” Pelosi said. “Absolutely not,” she said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16057734

"Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, organizer of the Democratic campaign to win back the House in the recent election, claimed the next war spending bill would be “the turning point for a new direction.” According to Curry of MSNBC, Emanuel “said the bill will impose conditions which Bush will be forced to accept if he wants the money, such as a commission to investigate funds unaccounted for or allegedly wasted in Iraq." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/dems-d12.shtml

Sorry, Rahm apparently wants to increase the size of the military, and wants to stay the course in Iraq (except with better accounting), but now I'm not convinced he wants the increased troops specifically for Iraq. He just wants a bigger military in general, I guess.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

8. The statement by Pelosi about not cutting off funding for the

troops.

They have to avoid a situation where there are troops over there and they are not being funded, thus even worse equipped and more vulnerable than under Rummy.

Not only would it be wrong to do that to the troops, but it is very likely that it would work against Democrats for a long time into the future. It has been a long time talking point of the GOP to say Dems don't support the troops, are weak on foreign policy etc.

As for increasing the military, that would seem to be necessary since it has been so ravaged by the current administration's policies.

Now, there certainly needs to be accountability for funds spent/wasted, I think we all (here) agree on that.

[noamnety]

9. Cut off the funding.

You don't end a war by financing it indefinitely "for the good of the troops."

And you don't increase the military by continuing the policies that ravaged it. Not that I'm in favor of increasing it; I'm just pointing out the flaw in the logic.

The way to increase the military is to stop using them for imperialistic missions that line the pockets of contractors and millionaires while bleeding the country dry. The way to increase it is to bring the troops home, and have them work in our communities on the real issues that threaten America.

You know what would rock? If the military pitched in and rebuilt New Orleans, instead of driving around in armored vehicles treating the relief workers like potential criminals. It would rock if they grew community gardens to feed the poor. It would rock if they built shelters for the homeless, and instead of "practicing their skills" as doctors by giving female soldiers breast implants, they ran free medical clinics for civilians (and veterans the VA won't see) who actually need medical care.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

10. There hopefully is a way to end the war soon without cutting the funding

to the troops.

Neither I nor Speaker Pelosi are saying to fund it indefinitely.

[noamnety]

11. I haven't yet found a person who said "not indefinitely"

who had a definite date where funds would be cut whether the "mission" was accomplished or not. Anyone who uses that word seems, in fact, to be completely open-ended with no deadline at all - in other words, indefinite (opposite of definite).

Please prove me wrong. You claim Pelosi isn't saying to fund it indefinitely. When is her definite end point?

Or is she yet another politician who can't promise anything more specific than "we swear we won't fund the occupation for an infinite number of years."

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

12. Time will tell. Actions will speak louder than words. n/t

[noamnety]

13. "time will tell" is INDEFINITE.

Please don't do a "clean skies" reinterpretation of words.

If the deadline for cutting off funds is indefinite, just say so, don't say the opposite.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

14. Like my words have an impact on policy. Time will tell is an observation

anyhow, not a policy.

I will wait and see what unfolds.

[GreenArrow]

16. nevermind

.

[Jcrowley]

4. More Rahm

"I am glad the President has realized the need for increasing the size of the armed forces... but this is where the Democrats have been for two years," commented Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the new House Democratic Caucus chairman.) The Democratic leadership promptly pledged to make such an expansion one of its top reform priorities in the New Year.

[orleans]

5. little hawkish, don't you think? he deserved to be interrupted by cindy

during his press conference the other day.

[Jcrowley]

6. Well now

I'd have to say Yes

Cindy

and others

See ya' there

[Cha]

7. What is he?...Schzoid?

"Our generals on the ground in Iraq have a plan for the withdrawal of American forces. The Iraqi government has a plan and timeline for the withdrawal of American forces. The outliers are the Republicans in Congress, who seem more focused on scoring political victories in America than on bringing our mission to a successful conclusion in Iraq. They want to see an open-ended commitment with an open purse.”

"I am glad the President has realized the need for increasing the size of the armed forces... but this is where the Democrats have been for two years," commented Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the new House Democratic Caucus chairman.) The Democratic leadership promptly pledged to make such an expansion one of its top reform priorities in the New Year."

Does he even know what he's saying from one comment to the next?

[KittyWampus]

17. Well what is the fucking context of the second statement? A DU'er gives you a snippet

and you seem SO EAGER to go with it. :puke:

Most Democrats said we needed more troops in the past- WHEN IT WAS STILL FEASIBLE.

[sandnsea]

15. Yes

Creating a specific category of troops for counter-terrorism ops. This has been proposed for a long time and is a good idea. Opposing anything to do with the military is ridiculous and is why nobody listens to the left on national defense.

[KittyWampus]

18. No Shit, Democrats stance was there weren't enough troops WHEN IT MIGHT HAVE HELPED

once again, DU'ers take an incomplete quote out of context to agitate.

You are dishonest in the extreme, but enjoy your Rahm hate-fest :puke:

[noamnety]

19. Well, that's a problem right there.

What exactly was going to be accomplished by having "more troops"?

The stance should have been that we should have had NO troops in Iraq.