Slap the benchmarks into the Frigging Supplemental. This is not that difficult

[Perky]

He gets the money but is required to stipulate progress on actual benchmarks.

It obviously will pass the house and never pass the senate.

That is what they have conference committees for...and that is where you put a stake in the ground.


You have to make the GOP look like the War Party willing to give Bush the ability to do anything he wants for as long as he wants. They will have no choice but to support it at the end of the day.

If he fails to report? It is Impeachable. Or certainly probable cause to investigate and censure.

[endarkenment]

1. vote no on war appropriations.

The only benchmark is "how many troops are still in Iraq?".

[Perky]

3. Don't be naive!!!!

That would be political suicide. Not becuse it is the wrong political position...but because we do a really shitty job at responding to attack ads and speech by the GOP.


We cut funding and we lose the House, the senata and the White House in 2008. DO i LIKE IT ....no. Is it the political reality...yes.

[endarkenment]

4. oh bullshit

the naivity is over in your court. You are being gamed into supporting at least two more years of war. There is only one effective path to ending the war, and that is to use the power of the purse to cut the funding.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime. Continuing to occupy Iraq continues to commit that crime. Even if your assertion that it would be political suicide to end the war were true, it is our ethical obligation to do so regardless of the domestic political consequences.

Enabling at least two more years of war is not going to end the war, it is going to prolong the war for at least two more years. Peace takes courage and we have very little of that.

[Perky]

6. I guess that means most Dems in Congress are naive as well

because no one is going to say cut funfing for the troops.

[endarkenment]

7. No one? Sure about that?

By the way when you use "cut funding for the troops" you are using the exact republican framing that you decry as making the only effective way of ending the war politically impossible. The troops are funded by the normal military appropriations bill. The Iraq War is what is funded by the special off budget emergency funding - for the war. We would be cutting the funds for the war, the troops would continue to have funding.

But you are right - it is dangerous, risky, doing NOTHING, or worse doing things that are completely ineffective, is a much safer course of action.

[Raven]

2. This President will certify to anything...

he's a liar, we know it, Congress knows it.

[endarkenment]

5. Yes but we will feel good about enabling more war. nt.

[endarkenment]

8. Senator Russ Feingold: use the power of the purse!

"Congress must use its power of the purse to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Let's not be intimidated by the misleading rhetoric of the White House and its allies when they try to prevent any discussion of Congress' ending the war. This isn't about "cutting off funds for troops." It's about cutting off funds for the war. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated -- as I have proposed -- Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way."

http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold02172007.html

There is only one effective method to end the war: remove the funds.