Rep. Barbara Lee: Fully Fund the Safe Withdrawal of our Troops ...

[bigtree]

March 6, 2007

Dear Colleague,

We write to share our thoughts with you about Congressional action regarding the ongoing occupation of Iraq and to make the case for fully funding the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq over a clear timeline.

By framing their discussion of the war in terms of winning and losing, the Bush administration seeks to portray critics of their policies as opposed to victory, or supportive of defeat.

The fact is that you cannot "win" an occupation, just as there is no way for the United States to "win" an Iraqi civil war.

The Bush administration understands this, just as they understand that there are no pretty or clean options for bringing a responsible end to our policy there. They are content to mouth the words of victory while they try to run out the clock, playing a cynical game of political "chicken," where whoever acts to bring a responsible end to their failed policy will be accused of having lost Iraq.

There is no question that moving to stop this folly carries a political risk - the accusation that Democrats gave up on the Vietnam War, despite all evidence that it was an unwinnable conflict, hurt the party's credibility on national security issues for a generation.

But we must consider the very real cost of not acting. We are spending $8 billion a month occupying Iraq, with an average of 67 U.S. troops being killed and 500 being wounded. The cost to our security of having our military bogged down in Iraq indefinitely is unsustainable, and is not only sapping vital funds from efforts to fight global terrorism, but is strengthening jihadist recruitment efforts internationally. The longer we allow the administration to delay meaningful movement, and the longer we fail to extract ourselves from this quagmire, the more dangerous this failed foreign policy becomes to America and the rest of the world.

As General Odom, the former head of the NSA under President Reagan, has made clear, withdrawal of U.S. troops is a precondition for engaging other countries in the region on their vested interest in Iraq's future stability. In terms of policy, fully funding the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops makes strategic sense.

Congress is going to have to act decisively to end this occupation and to bring troops home. Bush has bet his legacy on an unnecessary war that his administration has botched at every turn. His escalation plan is a plan to pass the buck. If anyone thinks that it will be easy for the next President, even a Democrat, to quickly extricate our nation from the mess Bush has made, he or she is just wrong. Congress is going to have to act, either sooner or later.

The Bush administration argues that Congressional action on Iraq either constitutes micromanagement or cutting off funding for troops in the field, but let's look at the facts.

Fully funding withdrawal is not micromanagement, it is macromanagement - the Bush administration has so badly managed this effort that they have forced Congress to intervene.

Fully funding withdrawal is not cutting off funding - we are going to fully fund a rational alternative to the administration's attempt to run out the clock on their failed policy.

There is ample precedent of both Republican and Democratic Congresses acting to restrict or direct funds during wartime and the time has come to consider such action again.

We have a responsibility to challenge the administration's efforts to run out the clock, and by proposing to intervene by fully funding a policy that actually fulfills our nation's long term strategic security objectives, we force them to defend their track record on the war, which is a debate that Democrats win every time.

We hope to work with you to develop strategies to fully fund the safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Sincerely,

BARBARA LEE
Member of Congress

LYNN C. WOOLSEY
Member of Congress

MAXINE WATERS
Member of Congress

JERROLD NADLER
Member of Congress

MAURICE D. HINCHEY
Member of Congress

SAM FARR
Member of Congress

http://lee.house.gov/


Podcast: Interview with Congresswoman Barbara Lee

March 7th, 2007

LISTEN TO Barbara Lee’s special podcast interview (with Tony Trupiano) recorded March 7, 2007. Rep Lee is a PDA Advisory Board member and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She has been a leader on so many issues on Capitol Hill, including the battle to end the Iraq occupation. Hear Rep. Lee give the latest news about her efforts — in collaboration with other brave Congress members and PDA — to bring about a fully-funded, safe, orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=1014

[helderheid]

1. K & R!!

[helderheid]

2. this is falling too fast

[bigtree]

4. I think the Pelosi proposal today and this one will form the parameters

of the debate. This is the proposal which should prevail, despite the 'moderates' who say they won't support such an approach. I'm sure it will reach the floor for a vote. I'm hoping the leadership will recognize that this caucus won't be easily moved far off of this position and change their leadership-sponsored 'compromise'.

[helderheid]

5. I hope so too.

[helderheid]

6. I forgot to add - shall I ask you questions in order for you to answer to keep this kicked?

;)

[bigtree]

8. This will be all over the news soon. There's no way to keep a lid on this.

I think the honorable Speaker stumbled by supporting the latest rag instead of this approach. It makes the leadership resemble all of the recent criticisms from the rank-and-file that they're naive and are set to allow Bush to continue at his will and whim.

It's time for our more 'progressive' members to step up and stand in the way, as the leadership proposal should have very little republican support (if any) at all and will need a unified Democratic majority to prevail.

They have my complete support against the leadership proposal. I'm going to watch and see if they open the door again to the Out-of-Iraq Caucus and fix this before I go bananas on them. (like I just did in front of my buddy, my border collie)

[helderheid]

9. # for those who want to call:

PDA urges its members and allies to continue contacting Congress by phone (toll-free 1-888-851-1879) or other means to support a fully-funded withdrawal. If such an amendment is NOT adopted, urge Congress to vote “NO” on the Supplemental, and an unending occupation.

[bigtree]

10. here's David Swanson (who posts here) on this

The War Money Can Be Stopped

March 8, 2007 - 11:40am.

By David Swanson

If the Republicans in the House vote against the Supplemental spending bill to throw another roughly $100 billion at this war because the bill requires that troops be trained and rested, provides for veterans health care, gives money to Katrina relief and avocado growers, and threatens to move the war to Afghanistan if Bush doesn't make various claims about "progress" in Iraq in the coming months…

And if the Progressive Democrats vote against it because it funds an illegal and aggressive war…

The bill could be defeated. Then the Democratic leadership would have to choose between the Republicans on the one hand and the Progressive Democrats and the American public on the other.

{snip}

I caught a bit of the press conference on CNN's website, and the pressure that the Washington Post claimed was being put on Rep. Maxine Waters to go along with the Supplemental was clearly not working. Waters criticized the Democratic leadership's bill and stood strong for ending the war.

The second (Pelosi) press conference was quite disturbing . . . (I agree with David)

here's his blow by blow account from notes he took: http://www.democrats.com/node/12206

[leftchick]

3. now there is a plan

K&R

[Skidmore]

7. Kicking and recommending. I do wish there was another way

of saying it though. "Safe withdrawal" sounds like one of those faith-based sex ed initiatives that the Republics so love.

[bigtree]

11. This is the 'progressive' proposal

folks say they have more members than the 'blue dogs'

Let's get behind them . . .

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml