I believe any DEM running for President - must support the Feingold/Boxer Bill!

[RiverStone]

I will expect no less then a full endorsement of the Feingold/Boxer bill - to end the Iraq war - from any of our declared or contemplating DEM Presidential candidates. If they are on The Hill, I expect a YES vote; if they are not a voting member in the Senate or Congress, I expect an unequivocal endorsement in spirit.

Many folks of both parties regret their vote on the IWR; in consideration of where we stand today with this disastrous and failed policy, I see supporting this legislation (or a similar type legislation) in a swift and decisive manner as a prerequisite for continued support as our party's nominee for president. Period!

IMHO, that is a fair and rational bar to meet - particularly if you want to be our President.

:kick: :patriot: :kick:

* * * * * *

Feingold offered legislation of his own to the Foreign Relations Committee designed to end the war completely. If passed, that bill—cosponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)—would give the Department of Defense 60 days to submit and implement a strategy to remove troops from Iraq almost entirely.

more:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Feingold_asks_How_can_congress_end_0123.html



on edit: spelling

[Deep13]

1. I don't think we will be disappointed this time around.

[jobycom]

2. Absolutists frighten me

though in general your argument is sound. I'll make an exception for a candidate who proposes or supports a viable alternative that does much the same thing but can actually be enacted, if this one can't. Remember that little School House Rock song, and the line "That's called a veto?" That bill will remain just a bill unless two thirds of both houses pass it. If there is no full withdrawal plan that can be passed with a veto-proof majority, I'd settle for a variation of that bill which can be passed.

If nothing can be passed which results in withdrawal, then yes, it's time for symbolism. But I respect getting things done a lot more than making a good statement.

Point is, I hate absolutes. I'll judge each candidate on an individual basis, and not apply such a test to them. However, they will be judged harshly if they don't have a good alternative for a good reason to this bill.

[RiverStone]

3. Normally I would agree, but...

The action required to end this insanity requires compelling and decisive action.

I agree jobycom, that 99% of the time "absolutes" don't wash - there are always shades of grey.

But not here..

IMHO - this is one of those 1% exceptions where immediate action must be taken, unambiguously, to end the continued tragic and needless loss of life. It feels like a school bus with the driver asleep at the wheel, heading for a cliff; we must grab the wheel and save the bus.

No in betweens, no middle ground, yes---absolutely---we must vote to cut off funding.

Shrub being the egomaniac he his could not care less if all the Senators opposed escalation, he will march onward oblivious to voice and reason. This legislation is the only way to stop him -no more non-binding b.s. ABSOLUTE action is required. And I will hold who I vote for to that expectation.

Absolution which is already late on arrival, and cold comfort to the thousands that have died in Shrub's war.



peace~

[jobycom]

4. Exactly. Action. Not more symbolism.

I'm sick to death of us praising those who "voted against the war." The damn thing still happened, so they didn't accomplish anything. I want something done, and if a good compromise can end this thing, that's better than us drawing a line in the sand and saying "We love those on this side, we hate those on this side." The IWR is a good example. The IWR was the best chance to stop Bush from invading Iraq. Without it, Bush would have invaded anyway, sooner, and without going to the UN first. Some people--Hillary, for instance--made it clear she was voting for the IWR in the hopes that it would avert a war.

Those who vote symbolicly don't accomplish anything. I'm tired of us praising pretty words while we wind up in ugly wars, anyway. Someone willing to work both sides of the aisles, to get together a compromise that will get us out, will get my money and approval a lot faster than someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and says "LALALALA. If it's not my way, I'm not listening!" (I'm talking about politicians, not you or me).

So again, I agree, they need to back this bill. But if there's a way to work out a compromise to get the two thirds of votes needed to override a veto, and start pulling troops out, or at least start the end process, I'm for that over an absolute "We must do this now." My only real quibble with what you said is, I will judge each candidate's motivations on their own merits, and on how I feel they tried to end this bloody occupation, not on how they voted on a specific bill. Most votes are for show, anyway. The leaders of the houses know how many votes they have, and they trade votes around to make constituents happy and still get the numbers they want. Voting records just don't impress me that much. Actions impress me more.