The Pelosi-Murtha Iraq 'benchmark' approach won't work

[bigtree]

The requirement in Pelosi's bill which requires Bush to tell them if he's making any progress in Iraq before continuing on will not restrain Bush from just lying. Congress needs to make that determination now that progress isn't being made, not wait for Bush to tell them if he has. The leadership effort needs a lot of work before it can claim that it will move Bush from his occupation. In it's present form, it is permission for Bush to lie to continue.

from the AP account: http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/305351896434497.bsp

"The measure emerged from days of private talks among Democrats following the collapse of Murtha's original proposal, which would have required the Pentagon to meet readiness and training standards without the possibility of a waiver.

Murtha said its implementation would have starved the war effort of troops because the Pentagon would not be able to find enough fully rested, trained and equipped units to meet its needs.

Several moderate Democrats spoke out against it, though. And Republicans sharply attacked it as the abandonment of troops already in the war zone."


The Barbara Lee amendment, just announced today should be the bones of any resolution or bill. Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Diane Watson of California; Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York; Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas and Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, have an amendment which would fund a withdrawal, bringing our troops home by Christmas. Kucinich has said that, although he thinks money is 'in the pipeline' he supports the bill which provides direct funding to accomplish the goal.

from Raw Story: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Progressive_Democrats_promote_Iraq_withdrawal_by_0308.html

"At a press conference this morning with fellow members of the Progressive and Out of Iraq Caucuses in the House of Representatives, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) unveiled a proposal to fully fund the withdraw of US troops from Iraq no later later than the end of 2007. Her Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) also indirectly criticized the House Democratic leadership proposal, saying there was a need to "act boldly."

The amendment:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. _, AS REPORTED

(SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 2007)

OFFERED BY MS. LEE OF CALIFORNIA

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. _. (a) Funds appropriated for Operation Iraqi Freedom or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense under any provision of law may be obligated and expended within the Republic of Iraq only for the purpose of providing for-

(1) the continued protection of members of the Armed Forces who are in Iraq participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Iraq performing contracts related to such Operation, pending and during the withdrawal of such members of the Armed Forces and such contractor personnel; and

(2) the safe and complete withdrawal from Iraq of all members of the Armed Forces and contractor personnel described in paragraph (1) pursuant to a plan that provides for completion of the withdrawal not later than December 31, 2007.

(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available to any department or agency of the United States to carry out diplomatic efforts or social and economic reconstruction activities in Iraq.

[bigtree]

1. kick

current state of affairs, folks

[leftchick]

2. I agree

in a way it is another enabling act. Just cut the funds and bring em home.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Excellent point

depending on bush or anyone else in his administration to tell the truth is extremely risky at best.

[genie_weenie]

4. Sadly I believe William S. Lind is right when

he characterizes the Democratic majorities as the "Washington Dodgers".

For the Democrats, what's not to like is anything that might actually end the war before the 2008 elections. The Republicans have 21 Senate seats up in 2008, and if the Iraq war is still going on, they can count on losing most of them, along with the Presidency and maybe 100 more seats in the House. 2008 could be the new 1932, leaving the Republican Party a permanent minority for twenty years. From the standpoint of the Democratic Party's leadership, a few thousand more dead American troops is a small price to pay for so glowing a political victory. emphasis mine

<more>
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=10639

I can only hope he is wrong about the Democratic plan...