Call Congress Today to Stop an Attack on Iran!

[Breeze54]

Call Congress... 202-224-3121

or toll free at 1-800-903-0682

http://www.peace-action.org/campaigns/iransupp.html

tell them to include language requiring President Bush
to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran!

Our best chance to require President Bush to seek Congressional authorization
for military action against Iran is to include this requirement in
the Supplemental Appropriations bill. While there are several free-standing bills
to this effect, none of them are likely to pass, which makes it very important to
attach this requirement to the Supplemental.

Call the Congressional switchboard at

202-224-3121 or toll free at 1-800-903-0682

and ask to be connected to your Representative.

You may use the sample script below when talking to Congressional staff.

Hello, I am a constituent of Representative______. I live at_______.
I am calling because I want to make sure that there is language in
the Supplemental Appropriations bill requiring President Bush to get
Congressional authorization before taking military action against Iran.
Experts as diverse as Henry Kissinger, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad,
and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have all argued that the U.S. needs to
talk to Iran, not rush to war, I hope that Representative______ does all that
they can to heed this sound advice.
Thank you for your time, please pass my message along to the Representative
and keep me posted on any further developments with this important issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Dear Breeze;

We don't have much time.

On Thursday morning, a key committee in the House of Representatives will vote on a plan for Iraq.
Until Monday, that plan included a provision stating that the president could not attack Iran
without Congressional approval.

Now, in an attempt to get more votes for the Iraq plan, the Iran provision has been removed.

We need your help to get it put back in. We need Congress to send the president a strong message
— he can't unilaterally launch a preemptive attack on Iran.

Call the Capitol Hill switchboard right now at 1-800-614-2803 and ask for your representative.

Urge him or her to support adding a "don't attack Iran" provision to the Iraq war supplemental spending bill.
Members of the Appropriations Committee, such as Rep. John Olver of MA-1, especially need to hear from us.
You could also call Rep. Pelosi and Rep. Obey, who is chair of the Appropriations Committee.

The Bush administration has already made itself alarmingly clear—it wants all options
for Iran on the table, including a preemptive military strike.

We must make our voices equally clear--Congress must learn from the disastrous war in Iraq and
exert its oversight powers.
Members of the House and Senate must push the administration to engage in the hard work of
diplomacy, the real solution to the problem, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

Congress cannot allow the president to once again lead this country into a disastrous, misguided war.

So call now (1-800-614-2803) to ask your Member of congress to support peace and diplomacy,
with the "don't attack Iran" provision restored to the supplemental.

After you call, please let us know how it went.
And then click the "Send a friend" link at the bottom of this message to spread the word today!

We DO have a chance to reverse this decision in the committee, now when it matters most,
but only with your help!

Thank you for your continued support for peace.

For peace,

Shelagh, Susanna & Angela
Massachusetts Peace Action


The National Network

Choose a region.

http://www.peace-action.org/gen/natlnet.html
Peace Action has 27 state affiliates and over 100 chapters nationwide.
To find an affiliate or chapter in your area, select one of the regions on the map below.

http://www.studentpeaceaction.org/
Young activists throughout the peace movement are waging a campaign of resistance
against the military's increased and misleading targeting of youth in the United States.

[reprehensor]

1. Attacking Iran even freaks out Brzezinski.

He says if Bush does it, that's it for this Empire;
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/second_chance.html

Jig's up.

[Breeze54]

2. It's freaking me out!!

How've you been, reprehensor? Good, I hope! ;)

Thanks for the link to that video!

W does get an F! :grr:

[Breeze54]

8. Protestors are yelling in the room!

"No War with Iran! Stop the War!!!"

Lots & lots of yelling!

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan3_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

[bdamomma]

17. this is happening now, thank god for those protestors

who live in the "real world".

[Breeze54]

22. You can say that again!

Well said, Alyce! :hi:

[Breeze54]

45. 10 Peace Activists Arrested Today at the Public Appropriations Committee

CODEPINK Co-Founder and 10 Peace Activists Arrested Today at the Public Appropriations Committee

Posted by CODEPINK (32 posts) @ Link below...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2768315

CODEPINK Co-founder Gael Murphy and 10 other peace activists arrested Thursday morning at 9:30 am
while attempting to enter the public Appropriations Committee vote on the Supplemental Bill
allocating $100 billion for the war in Iraq.

More at link....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

I couldn't see who was doing the yelling but I heard them!
That must be why the hearing was delayed.

Thanks CodePink!

Edited to add link of pictures of the arrests from helderheid.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x416899

Pics
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_24099.shtml

[Breeze54]

3. Supplemental for Iraq - THURS., C-SPAN3 - 9AM ET

ON CAPITOL HILL

Supplemental for Iraq

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) chairs a Full House Approps. Cmte. mark up of the supplemental bill for Iraq.
Democratic leaders proposed a $124.1 billion plan that focuses on troop withdrawl from Iraq & care of injured troops.

The bill may face opposition over the language about Iraq and certain spending measures.

THURS., C-SPAN3, 9AM ET

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan3_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

09:00 AM EDT

9:00 (est.) LIVE

House Committee

Fiscal Year 2007 Army War Supplemental Markup

Appropriations

David R. Obey , D-WI
The beginning and end of this live program may be earlier or later than the scheduled times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm there but it doesn't seem to have started yet.
Did someone wake up late? Forgot to turn the clocks back?
:shrug:

[Palladin]

4. The deal Pelosi made

on Monday removed that provision from the House bill. It cannot be described as other than a
betrayal of the Constitution and the common people of the former United States, at the behest of the neocons and AIPAC, who held their fealty convention this
week----with Cheney as the main attraction. Senator Webb has a similar provision in the Senate, and he deserves
encouragement, since they will target him next. He'll be a tough nut for these chickenhawks - "Born Fighting". Give him your support.
Most of Congress lacks principle, honor, and courage here. The neocons and AIPAC are well on their way
towards sundering this country, after lighting the match of a war which will come back home on them. The only ones who can stop it are the military
high command, God help us and the former Republic.

[demnan]

5. I'm so mad at Nancy right now

I think I'll change my first name!

[Breeze54]

6. Well stated

and Welcome to DU! :hi:

"It cannot be described as other than a betrayal of the Constitution
and the common people of the former United States"

I'm just rubbing my forehead in frustration... gheesh! :grr:

[bigtree]

11. that's just not correct

there is NO authority anywhere for Bush to attack Iran unless there is some imminent threat which requires immediate defense. All of the nonsense about this provision supposes Bush has the authority. He doesn't, and anyone who argues that he does, including the WH is full of shit.

All this provision in the House Iraq supplemental does is give folks who don't want to vote for the withdrawal plan a reason other than Iraq to vote against the bill, including the 'progressives' who are looking for a way to derail the legislative effort to hold Bush accountable and demand he end the occupation and bring our troops home. It's a calculated distraction which was correctly removed from the legislation.

Now . . . all of the supporters of putting the Iran provision back in the House bill step up and tell me that you really support the leadership's Iraq compromise legislation.

[majorjohn]

28. I said it once before, and will say it again

Fuck Pelosi!

[bigtree]

32. It's interesting that the same type of appeal trashing our Democratic Speaker

is coming from rabid republicans.

Go figure.

[Blackhatjack]

7. Someone needs to make it clear that removing this provision is not same as giving Bush authority...

.... to attack Iran.

I would like the provision to stay in, but there is no perverse logic that Bush can use to say taking this provision out was tacit approval for him to attack Iran without Congressional authorization.

[bigtree]

9. exactly

there is NO authority in the IWR or anywhere else for Bush to attack Iran precipitously.

[Breeze54]

10. Since when has that stopped him?

I want it spelled out so that he can understand it and it's VERY clear!
No words larger than four letters allowed and single syllables!

[bigtree]

12. It is clear. Read the Constitution.

[Breeze54]

16. Tell that to B*!

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention!



Your president is an


Did you forget he said this?




Good luck with your

[bigtree]

19. And, you expect him to give heed to a provision in the spending bill

which he's expected to veto or ignore, anyway, with a signing statement.

Who's in denial?

[bdamomma]

21. can I put in my two cents on this subject

yesterday on Sam Seder someone called in saying how this provision was taken will give the green light for this wicked WH to attack without Congressional approval. Sam replied No, this does give the WH the authority to invade Iran, according to the War Powers Act of 1973.

Here is that Act

http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/war_powers.html

[bigtree]

23. I don't understand his argument

The act clearly says Bush must come before Congress, and that he can commit forces only if:

"pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

[bdamomma]

40. no, I am not trying to argue, just bringing the facts to you about

the War Powers Act of 1973, ok, it clearly says that the President must come before the Congress, I just need clarification, the provision was taken out of the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, we still have the War Powers Act on our side. Does that make sense to you.

[bigtree]

41. That's how I see it.

There's the prospect that Congress would do the same thing they did when Bush committed forces to Iraq and roll over, but I don't see that happening. If he jumps without congressional approval, I think he'll be immediately slammed with a resolution demanding he pull back and adhere to the WPA.

I just don't think the WPA's shortcomings can be adequately debated by the narrow focus on Iran. It's an interesting approach which will generate a storm of controversy over the war making powers of the Executive in general, which is a good thing, But that debate would not be a short one. it should occur outside of the loaded supplemental so that there will be no question of Congress' intent.

No one should want Bush to be able to deflect from the Iraq provisions and dwell exclusively on the Iran matter by claiming Congress is threatening the authority he assumes he has as commander-in-chief.

[mmonk]

29. I disagree. It will be used under the pretext

of the war on terrorism no matter what the IWR stood for. You're equating thinking that is not the same with this administration and it's overall agenda. To not put a safeguard up is gambling with our lives given the overwhelming evidence of how this administration operates.

[bigtree]

36. On one hand you point out how Bush is ignoring the Constitution

then you expect him to recognize a restrictive provision in a spending bill. Where's the safeguard? Wouldn't Bush just issue a signing statement claiming that his interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one?

The way to usurp his use of the authority he imagines is to take up a war powers initiative which spells out his authority in general terms, taking the interest groups off of their biased pedestals.

If Congress feels that he's exceeded his authority they are in a perfect position to immediately rebuke him. If they can't find the votes to do that when it occurs, they won't be able to resolve their differences now.

The Iraq initiative shouldn't be held hostage to the Iran provision.

[mmonk]

42. Not holding anything hostage.

Think it will float on it's own?

[bigtree]

46. I think hearings should be held, first, exclusively on this issue of Iran

Let AIPAC and their detractors have their fight in the open. They need to make the determination before Bush over whether Iran poses whatever threat and what action should be taken to address that. That's the crux of the matter and it makes no sense to just let Bush slip into an offensive posture (as they have already with battleships and missile batteries deployed by Bush to the region) without directly questioning those actions.

Bush has already declared Iran a state sponsor of terror and a potential nuclear threat. Congress has to, not only address whatever authority Bush might assume from the IWR, they have to also address the false authority Bush is claiming from the 'War on Terror' authorization to use military force if they expect to reign him in.

Along with the inquiry should also be a focus on the assertions by the WH of imagined authority behind the 'unitary executive' justifications they use in their signing statements. Otherwise, any resolution passed by Congress would be disregarded by the WH like all of the other laws passed and reasoned away by claims of Executive and constitutional authority. That focus in the hearings would move Congress closer to challenging whatever assertions of Executive war-making power in the inevitable constitutional confrontation which is coming to the Capitol or to the Courts.

It's not just that they can have this debate apart from this Iraq debate; it's important to both of the measures' success that the matters are fully debated on their own merits. The overriding initiative on Iraq should not crumble under some question of Congress' authority to direct Bush through the funding. That's the distraction the opposition is counting on to hide behind. "Tying the president's hands," and nonsense like that.

The Iraq proposal is clearly within the authority and responsibility to direct funds they appropriate. The Iran initiative is also, but it's about the very complex and important question of when and how to commit forces. It deserves fleshing out in a way that addresses other military scenarios so that it won't be used to justify actions out of its context. I just don't think all of that can occur in a definitive way by tying it to this bill.

The question of withdrawing from Iraq should not be overshadowed by a debate on Iran. I fear that would be the result of introducing this complex question in context with the Iraq proposal. Pelosi couldn't get the Iraq initiative out of committee because of the Iran question. The vote in committee is today or tomorrow. It looks like it will narrowly make it to the floor. It just couldn't bear the weight of the concerns over the Iran provision from some members. I'm looking fo Congress to put the questions in a more public and deliberative forum, possibly the Senate with Webb's amendment. It needs open debate which would not come easily from the House and would likely smother their compromise effort.

[mmonk]

48. I'm not much on compromise with this bunch.

Anyway, I'm not for anything that allows this administration to use anything as an excuse to avoid the constitutional channels and I think dropping it sends the wrong signal to one who wants to push the envelope and has made his whole presidency based on "unitary executive" theory. I'm also against all democrats who believe a strike on Iran is appropriate without damning evidence they intend to launch a nuclear attack against someone.

[bigtree]

50. I think its defeat would be worse than dropping it

Is it clear that the Iran initiative has the votes in the House right now to sustain it in the bill or on its own?

[mmonk]

51. No and that's a problem.

[Breeze54]

13. Pelosi's Disastrous Misstep on Iran

Pelosi's Disastrous Misstep on Iran

John Nichols

Posted 03/13/2007 @ 12:49pm

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=174804

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted that spending legislation designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy should also include a provision barring the president from attacking Iran without congressional approval, they opened up a monumental discussion about presidential war powers.

As such, the decision by Pelosi and her allies to rewrite their Iraq legislation to exclude the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran sends the worst possible signal to the White House.

It is not too much to suggest that Pelosi disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come.

Here's how the Speaker messed up:

The Democratic proposal for a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq included a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. It was an entirely appropriate piece of the Iraq proposal, as the past experiences of U.S. involvement in southeast Asia and Latin America has well illustrated that when wars bleed across borders it becomes significantly more difficult to end them. Thus, fears about the prospect that Bush might attack Iran are legitimately related to the debate about how and when to end the occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.

Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

The problem with Berkley's "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- is this: Nothing in the provision that had been included in the spending bill would have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war.

By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush more of an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval.

Again and again, the Bush administration has seized any and every opening to claim powers that were never accorded the executive branch by the Constitution or the Congress. Remember that this administration has sought to justify a massive, unregulated domestic spying program by claiming authority under narrow legislation that was passed permitting the president to respond to the September 11, 2OO1, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Never mind that no mention of such spying was included in the 2OO1 legislation; the fact that it was not explicitly barred gave the administration all the room it required to claim the power to disregard the Constitution and the rule of law.

By stripping the Iran provision from the legislation that is now under consideration by Congress, Pelosi has handed Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- no believer he is the separation of powers -- exactly what they want. They can and will say that, when the question of whether Congress should require the administration to seek Congressional approval for an attack on Iran, Pelosi chose not to pursue the matter.

Anyone who thinks that Bush and Cheney will fail to exploit this profound misstep by Pelosi has not been paying attention for the past six years. The speaker has erred, dramatically and dangerously.

Pelosi should reverse her decision and restore the Iran provision to the legislation. It is the only way to check and balance an administration that stands ready to exploit every opening it is given by a naive and inept Congress.

[bigtree]

15. This article was written by another person who doesn't want the Iraq legislation to pass

I can't ignore his reference to "her flawed spending legislation"

[Breeze54]

20. John Nichols is well known.

John Nichols, a pioneering political blogger, has written the Online Beat since 1999.
His posts have been circulated internationally, quoted in numerous books and mentioned
in debates on the floor of Congress.

Nichols writes about politics for The Nation magazine as its Washington correspondent.
He is a contributing writer for The Progressive and In These Times and the associate
editor of the Capital Times, the daily newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin. His articles
have appeared in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and dozens of other newspapers.

Nichols is a frequent guest on radio and television programs as a commentator on politics
and media issues.....

snip-->

He edited Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire (Nation Books),
of which historian Howard Zinn said:
"At exactly the time when we need it most, John Nichols gives us a special gift--a collection
of writings, speeches, poems, and songs from throughout American history- -that reminds us
that our revulsion to war and empire has a long and noble tradition in this country."

With Robert W. McChesney, Nichols has co-authored the books, 'It's the Media, Stupid!'
(Seven Stories), Our Media, Not Theirs (Seven Stories) and Tragedy and Farce: How the
American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy (The New Press).
McChesney and Nichols are the co-founders of Free Press, the nation's media-reform network,
which organized the 2003 and 2005 National Conferences on Media Reform.

Of Nichols, author Gore Vidal says:
"Of all the giant slayers now afoot in the great American desert, John Nichols’s sword is the sharpest."

More at link... http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/john_nichols

ARTICLES BY John Nichols 1999 - 2007

[bigtree]

24. so what. He's clearly biased against the leadership compromise legislation on Iraq

as are many 'progressives' who favor unconditional, immediate withdrawal.

[Breeze54]

25. What do you have against peace?

When are your kids joining the military?
Are you ready to go to Iran? Iraq? :shrug:

You use " " around the word progressives, as if it's a dirty word.
Very telling. I'm guessing you love HRC and the DLC too! :eyes:

[bigtree]

30. who are you to tell me that I have something against peace?

your argument has become full of it.

Ask a group of individuals what they think progressive means and you will get as many answers as there are individuals. We used to call ourselves 'liberals', then the 'moderates' emerged as a way to describe 'conservative' Democrats and 'liberal' republicans.

Why don't you stick to the point of your post instead of picking a fight with me?

[Breeze54]

33. Hey bigtree...

I'm the terrified mother of a soldier whom has already
been stop-lossed and served in Iraq. I don't want him going back!

I asked you a question. I made no accusations.

I'm just wondering why you are opposed to adding those words!

..... Why are you cussing?

[bigtree]

38. EVERYONE who knows me is aware of my constant dedication to peace

As sympathetic as I am to the sacrifices your family has made, I'm not going to give any quarter to anyone questioning my commitment to peace.

That's what makes me so steamed about the attacks on our leadership. Most of our Democrats care as much as we do about peace, but they have a myriad of solutions to ending Bush's militarism which can be disagreed with, but are used to gauge their commitment, which I think is wrong. There's too much bashing folks for motives which are not usually apparent from just looking at the different proposals. Most of us want peace, but we obviously are struggling with finding the best way to achieve it in our political system.

[TwilightGardener]

47. Have to interject, here--I think it's important to consider Iran as well

as Iraq in light of reading Glenn Greenwald's recent Salon pieces on Bush and Cheney in the last two days (sorry, can't link)--it's very clear that Iraq is a steppingstone to Iran. Iran is and has always been the real target of the neocons, Iraq is just the vehicle to get there. The language should be included, as the two countries are intertwined in BushCo's plans.

[bigtree]

49. I think it would doom the House proposal in committee

before it even reached the floor. There are folks who are willing to doom the Iraq initiative, (hiding?) behind their opposition to the Iran language.

No Iraq initiative, no Iran provision, anyway. There's the reality of Bush's ambitions and there's the politics of getting a bill to the House floor with enough support to pass it. As it is, there will be Democratic defections and scant republican support when it does reach the House floor.

Why doesn't Congress take up the Iran matter separately in committee so that it gathered enough support for a viable amendment? I just don't think they can force the provision through in the House as an ingrained part of the Iraq funding bill. It can, however stand as an amendment, but I don't think it has enough support to pass yet. There need to be more hearings, possibly, to gather more support. Risking the Iraq matter isn't worth it.

I think the Senate bill will be the one with the most play, in the end. I prefer to pass the House bill however they can. It will send a powerful chill. The Senate action will have more opportunity for open debate and will be more illuminating. Webb has the strongest bid on this. Watch the Senate and Webb, and trust our Speaker when she says she doesn't have the votes to get the Iraq matter out of committee with the Iran provision included.

[TwilightGardener]

52. I'll concede the point that it may be best to do a separate

measure or amendment on Iran, but I'm not hopeful that would pass either. Looking forward to Webb's measure--someone needs to put on the brakes, and he's the guy to do it.

[bigtree]

53. The Senate is more receptive to amendments on the floor

The House bills usually get amended in committee. If an amendment comes to the House floor which isn't a compromise or a fix, it usually comes with the same lack of votes it was suffering in the backrooms.

The Senate has much more opportunity for open debate which moves the issue beyond the pages of devoted watchers like DU'ers and generates political pressure.

[mmonk]

14. As long as

Emanuel and the DLC control strategy and agenda, we have no voice concerning such things.

[bdamomma]

18. thanks will do

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. And, from Code Pink

From an email I received yesterday:


"On Sunday, CODEPINK women in San Francisco, frustrated after two months of unsuccessfully trying to meet with their Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi about the war in Iraq, started camping out at her doorstep. "It might seem like an extreme measure," said Bay Area CODEPINK er Toby Blome, "but these are extreme times. We are pleading with her to stop funding Bush's war."

When Nancy Pelosi was named Speaker of the House, we were all excited to have a woman-a progressive one at that!-in this seat of power. But instead of using her leadership position to end the war by cutting the funds, she has become mired in inside-the-beltway compromises that would allow the war to drag into 2008. To make matters worse, she just removed an amendment to the supplemental spending bill that would have forced Bush to get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran. So the supplemental bill proposed by Speaker Pelosi will give Bush another $100 billion for the war in Iraq, and will keep open the door to an attack on Iran!"

That's why we'll continue to camp out at Pelosi's home, and occupy her offices, until Congress votes on the supplemental war budget. And that's why we need you to call her office today. Call 202-225-0100 for her office in DC.and ask for Mike Sheehy, or call (415)-556-4862 for her San Francisco office and ask for Dan Bernal. Tell them that the Speaker should cut off all funds for the war, or at the very least allow a vote on Cong. Barbara Lee's amendment to only use the funds for a safe withdrawal of the U.S. troops by the end of the year. And don't allow Bush to attack Iran! Don't forget to also call your own Representative to tell him or her to Vote NO on the supplemental appropriations. The Congressional switchboard can be reached at 888.851.1879.

We can't let this stand! Our message has to be loud and clear: Don't Buy Bush's War For more info and inspiration, visit our new website www.dontbuybushswar.org.

[bigtree]

31. another approach intending to defeat the compromise legislation by highlighting the Iran provision

this is naked politics designed to derail the compromise. They clearly wanted to cut off the funding instead, which would have directed Bush to do NOTHING.

Bush has NO authority to use the IWR to attack Iran, whether a specific prohibition is in placed in the bill or not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. "They clearly want to cut off the funding.." That's right.

Continuing to fund Bush's war in order to end it, is right out of Orwell. Or, P.T. Barnum.

[bigtree]

39. yet, even those legislators, like Kucinich and Feingold

have provisions in their withdrawal legislation to 'fund' the withdrawal.

It just makes sense to include funds with the demand to withdraw as most of the money which has been appropriated without earmarks hasn't reached the soldiers. Here is our party complaining that soldiers aren't getting the equipment and supplies they need, and they are stepping up to provide the funds for those concerns.

When we see the final draft of the House bill we will be able to look at where the money is going. Since it's a demand that Bush withdraw, before or by the date in the legislation, I would assume that most of the money would be used for that purpose.

[helderheid]

27. rec 4

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. K&R

[snappyturtle]

37. I don't care what anyone says about Constitutional protections

in regard to the president attacking Iran. It seems to me that this admistration has set the ground rules in their favor through the Patriot Act. I don't trust the administration to base any of their decisions on the Constitution.

[Sapphire Blue]

43. Found it & giving it a big K&R! And calling!

[Breeze54]

44. I love that pic!

Thanks! ;)