SEND MESSAGE to your rep, Pelosi, and "Blue Dog" Democrats: You support the cronies NOT the troops

[yurbud]

By voting to continue funding the war, you are putting the profits of the president's cronies in the oil and defense industry ahead of the welfare of our troops and the security of the United States as a consequence of the misuse of our military resources.

You will be dealt with accordingly in future campaign donation, primary votes, and general elections.

(maybe save that last line for Blue Dogs and Republicans).

I would suggest including your favorite photo of a veteran who lost a limb or the like. I'd say send a photo of a dead Iraqi kid, but he or his parents can't vote here, so it would have no effect on DC.

Pelosi
online contact:
http://speaker.house.gov/contact

ADDRESS:
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
[phone]


BLUE DOG (aka corporate lap dogs)
http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html

FIND YOUR REP:
(in the upper left)
http://www.house.gov

[cali]

1. Thanks for reminding me

to contact Pelosi to congratulate her on getting this legislation through. I also think I'll thank Reps. Woolsey, Lee and Waters for releasing the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus to vote for it. And I'll certainly remember to thank my rep, Peter Welch, who despite his misgivings and desire to see the troops home immediately, something I'd also like to see, voted for this, because he understood that it stands at least a slight chance of reigning in bushco.

[ccpup]

3. I'll also thank my Rep

for finally voting on legislation that deals with the embarrassing lack of attention given to the welfare (both mentally and physically) of our returning soldiers.

[yurbud]

7. then just send it to Blue Dogs who made the compromise necessary.

[BeFree]

51. Is this how low we have sunk?

"...a slight chance of reigning in bushco."

We are left with a slight chance, and you are gonna send them a thank you note? We're doomed. NGU!

[yurbud]

53. "please, sir, will you at some point in the future consider giving me another bowl of gruel?"

[rinsd]

69. Better to stamp one's feet and issue threats? (nt)

[cali]

55. A slight chance is better than NO chance and a futile

gesture, doomed to take the War off the agenda until 2009. Some of us understand that.

[leftchick]

2. a lot of them are Democratic cronies as well

so I don't know how much good it will do. But I will K&R this for the idea.

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. make sure they know they didn't support the troops by adding this to the bill

"The $124 billion emergency war bill the committee approved on Friday contains a wide range of funding for health care programs in the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs departments. Funding for DOD health care programs covered by the bill includes:"

$450 million for post-traumatic stress disorder/counseling.
$450 million for traumatic brain injury care and research.
$730 million to prevent health care fee increases for U.S. troops.
$20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed.
$14.8 million for burn care.
The bill increased funding for the VA's health care programs by $1.7 billion, including:


$550 million to address the maintenance backlog at VA health care facilities to prevent situations similar to those at Walter Reed.
$250 million for medical administration.
$229 million for treatment of a increased pool of veterans.
$100 million to allow the VA to contract with private mental health care providers.
$62 million to speed claims processing for returning veterans.

Have you even read the provisions of this bill? I want this war to end right now too, but it's not gonna happen. That's reality, face it. The Dems who voted for this bill did so to support the troops both while they are still in Iraq, and after they get home.

Please get all your facts straight forst before attacking our Dem leaders.

Thanks,

Ghost

[yurbud]

8. how many more of them will need those services because they let the war continue?

I loved Al Franken's show when it was on, but the one excruciating thing he'd always talk about was how we could do the war "better" rather than end it.

We should honor our commitment to injured vets. Even better is to get them out of harms way.

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. Yes, getting them out of harms way is what is best, I agree 100%

but the very cold and simple reality is that it would be a logistics nightmare to just pull up stakes and leave. This isn't M*A*S*H*, and we can't evacuate in one day. By cutting funding for the war, you're also leaving the troops hanging out to dry. Where's the money going to come from to get them home? What are they going to have to protect themselves with against attacks?

Let's look a little closer.

How long will it take just to get all of the tanks off the ground and out of country?

How about the bradley fighting vehicles?

The supply trucks?

The ambulances and medical vehicles?

The equipment to run field hospitals?

All the camps and equipment for the troops?

All the helicopters?

All the troops? How many is there, 100,000(?) with boots on the ground? How many troops fit on a C-130 transport? How many flights are required to just get the troops out?

All of this needs to be figured out first. They have been bringing troops and equipment in for 4 years... how long does it take to get it out, how are we going to get it out, and where are we going to put it when we get it home?.... until this is all settled, we MUST keep our troops funded and supported. There is no alternative.

Ghost

[yurbud]

38. that would be valid if the draw down was even starting. it's not. that's a little like saying you

shouldn't let an innocent man out of jail because he doesn't have a way to get home.

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. I understand what you're saying, but by cutting funding, wouldn't we

be telling the troops "we are cutting off your funds, but you can go home, if you can find a way"..... ?

[yurbud]

42. I wouldn't even say that cutting off the funds would be best, but since this is a fairly itemized

bill, they could have provided the money to withdraw and for nothing else. They also could have cut off funds to a lot of the contractors,especially mercenaries. That would let the air out of tires of some war support.

[Ghost in the Machine]

48. point taken... but, given the reality of things, wouldn't THAT bill get vetoed

faster than this one would? Yes, on this bill that they passed, they gave Bush pretty much what he wants, so it wouldn't get vetoed, and they slipped in some extra to take care of the troops for now, and when they return home. They don't want to waste time passing bad legislation that is sure to be vetoed, but they will pass some that may be vetoed.. or it may not. Passing bad legislation after bad legislation is just going to keep the troops there anyways. This is about getting something, anything started to even have a chance of bringing the home.

[yurbud]

52. remember Clinton's budget stand off with Newt that almost shut down the gov't?

This may or may not be the time to call Bush's bluff that far, but if Bush vetoed this or a tougher bill, Congress should refuse to give him something more to his liking and make him blink first.

[Ghost in the Machine]

65. oh, I agree 100%

if this bill gets vetoed, when he's been given everything he's asked for, plus some... then screw him, don't give him anything next time.

[truedelphi]

60. This bill allows the war in Iraq to continue and the war in Iran to

Come into being

Scarey scarey bill

[Ghost in the Machine]

66. Where, in this bill, does it give ANY mention of authorizing war on Iran?

spring is here... put your strawman to something useful.. like a scarecrow..

[truedelphi]

72. That's the point - it doesn't. Simply put, It DOES NOT

say a word about whether or not Bush will have to come to Congress to authorize a war against Iran (so he won't)

Nor is there wording in this bill that will give Congress the ability to de-fund any of Bush's actions against Iran.

For quite a while the speculation has been that when this war arrives, it will be a "limited" nuclear war.

[Bumblebee]

5. I know political realism does not mean much to you, or

the fact that the vote made Bush see red (while if she had followed Kucinich and got roundly defeated Bush would have been as happy as a clam) but I am still a bit stunned at how dogmatic this posting is. It's your right (and Kucinich's) to stick to your absolute principles, even if it means constant defeat and not being taken seriously, but please do not assume for a minute that we are all on the same page. This is sort of like Bush's "If you are not with us..."

[yurbud]

9. What is the principle the Blue Dogs are sticking to? This aint a football game. "Winning"

only matters to the degree that substantive things are accomplished.

[Kelly Rupert]

14. Indeed it does.

And if the Democrats were to take the Kucinich stance, absolutely nothing would ever be accomplished. In case you have not yet noticed, there is a Republican president, and the Republicans have more than a third of the house, and more than 40 seats in the Senate. Dogmatic purity is a losing strategy.

[yurbud]

17. dogmatic purity in this case isn't about switching to the metric system, but how many of our troops

die.

My point here is we should make the blue dogs feel heat for forcing a watered down bill, and let progressives know we will back more aggressive legislation when they can do it.

My OP was short so people might actually send it, and someone on the other end might read it, instead of just scanning for a keyword, then throwing it into the pile for an "Iraq" form letter response.

[Kelly Rupert]

19. And if we take the Kucinich stance, more of them will die,

because the war will go on indefinitely. In order to get out of Iraq, we must pass legislation to that end, and--unfortunately--that requires compromise and tact.

[yurbud]

25. I'll ask a straight question: do people in Blue Dog districts want the war to continue?

[Kelly Rupert]

28. Yes, if by "the war to continue" you mean "the war to end in 2008, as this legislation calls for."

Nationwide, more people support that position than the "bring-them-home-now" position.

[mondo joe]

43. I am learning again and again that there are those on the left as deaf to the broad

consensus as there are on the right.

I must be dense because I'm always surprised by it.

Thank you, Kelly, for being so rational.

[yurbud]

46. can you find that provision in the text of the bill? You might want to start a thread with the

good parts.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110s7UhKX::

[EFerrari]

58. Really? Do you have a source for that?

[The Magistrate]

6. Have Already Sent A Letter To My Representative, Sir

Thanking her for voting for this Bill, and so representing the desires of the great majority of her constituents.

But letters to those, both on the left and right extremities of the Party, who did not vote for this Bill, urging them to reconsider in the future of this struggle, and act in solidarity with their fellows and the leadership, would certainly be appropriate, and ought to be sent by all persons they represent in Congress.

[yurbud]

15. Did you thank them for stripping the provision requiring Bush to get permission to attack Iran?

[The Magistrate]

68. My Representative, Sir, Would Doubtless Have Voted For The Bill With that Provision

Its absence, to secure a working a majority, is no reason for her to have voted against the Bill, or sat on her hands, and it is for that she has my thanks, among other things.

The Representatives who need pressuring are those so deficient in solidarity, and in some instances courage, that that they abandoned the Party and voted instead with the Republicans. No excuse is good enough for that, Sir, in my view. Whether an exemplar of the further left like Rep. Kucinich, or some first term "blue dog' type, their behavior Thursday differs in no important particular from that of the likes of Lieberman or Nelson of Nebraska or Zell Miller: they gave their vote to the enemy, instead of to the Democratic Party.

[yurbud]

10. AMENDMENT: "Thank you for taking better care of our troops who are enforcing oil laws and contracts

I hope you provide this level of support until the last drop of oil is pumped and our troops can come home."

[yurbud]

11. Was this the best they can do? Probably. Does that mean we shouldn't ask for more?

How many people have to die before you DLC parasites care?

[Kelly Rupert]

12. I have sent a letter to all Democrats who voted against this bill,

telling them I disagreed with their decision to cripple our party and stand with the Republicans against the first workable plan to end the war in Iraq, and requesting them to consider working with our party in the future, instead of hobbling it with unreasonable demands for unobtainable levels of ideological purity.

[yurbud]

13. OK, now tell me how we're over there to fight terrorism, spread democracy, and must

bring stability before we can leave.

Even though over 90% of Iraqis want us to leave and less than one percent feel safer because we are there.
http://whatiraqiswant.blogspot.com

It is one thing to say this is the best we can get for now, it is something else to say it is good.

We need to keep the heat on them so they hear us over the lobbyists and the offers of jobs after they leave Congress.

[Kelly Rupert]

16. Everyone here wants to end the war in Iraq, sir.

However, fewer than 90 representitives would be on board with a resolution calling for an immediate pullout. It would have been a complete non-starter.

[WillyT]

22. Yeah... Makes Ya Wonder Who The Others Represent...

:shrug:

[yurbud]

18. seeing the responses in this thread, it may not be too late for me to buy some Halliburton stock

and who is the biggest manufacturer of prosthetic limbs? That's going to be a growth market too if you represent the conventional wisdom in DC.

[Kelly Rupert]

21. If the Democrats insist on torpedoing bills to end the war

because they would prefer a purer bill with a 0% chance of so much as passing the house, then yes, Halliburton stock would be a wise decision.

[yurbud]

23. Do you understand the difference between Congress role and ours?

Their role is the get the best deal they can, which this may be. Our role is to tell they what they should be shooting for.

[Kelly Rupert]

26. That is indeed their role, and ours.

However, telling them that "they support the cronies and not the troops," does not tell them what they should be shooting for. It tells them we're a bunch of rabid psychopaths who are incapable of understanding political reality, since we--despite all logic--think this bill was a win for Bush.

[yurbud]

29. what do you think we will accomplish in Iraq in the next year?

[Kelly Rupert]

32. Probably nothing n/t

[yurbud]

36. then we agree that this is the best they can do now, but it should be improved on if possible

the way to do that is put pressure on those who made the compromise necessary, and let progressives know we support more aggressive action when they can get it.

[Kelly Rupert]

45. A good consensus n/t

[yurbud]

47. you could reword my message to: "thank you for the good parts, and we hope you will go further when

you can."

And you can send my nasty version to the recalcitrant, which was really my main point anyway.

[Kelly Rupert]

50. That is a message I would be happy to send n/t

[truedelphi]

61. Nicely put n/t

[cali]

30. Sorry, that's more nonsense.

You started a thread that quite a few thought was wrong headed. Absolutely everyone on this thread wants to end the war as soon as possible. We just disagree with your futile, purist philosophy.

btw, I thought your little threat "you will be dealt with accordingly", was quite funny. Reminded me somehow of the Godfather.

[yurbud]

54. those are probably the only terms that a vast majority of polls respect

[yurbud]

20. as a talking point or bumper sticker, my OP stands, and should be used to embolden

progressives and shame the corporate owned.

[Kelly Rupert]

24. I'm afraid your bumper sticker would engender laughter and not shame.

It's ludicrous. Pelosi's bill is the greatest anti-Bush coup of the last six years. It didn't go quite as far as you would have liked, but I would say that very few people would agree that legislation ending the war is a victory for Bushco.

[yurbud]

27. not on this bill but in general. Do you really think there is any idealism on pro-war side?

[Kelly Rupert]

31. So you admit this bill is the best they can do, but you're calling them pro-Bush-crony

because in general it's good to be idealistic? I find that less than effective.

[yurbud]

35. the Blue Dogs, yes.

[mondo joe]

39. Idealism on the pro-war side? Heaps of it.

We can occupy a nation and democracy will blossom and spread across the mideast. Or we can stop terrorism by attacking Iraq. Or we'll be greeted as liberators.

WTF is that if not fool-headed idealism?

[yurbud]

49. that's the mush they feed the masses. Those in Congress aren't that stupid

they see dollar signs dancing in their heads, a donation, a CEO job, or some stock that goes up exponentially.

[rinsd]

71. Oooooo a bumper sticker!

Uh-oh watch out Blue Dogs!

[Marrah_G]

33. I'll pass thank you very much

I love my reps (Kerry,Kennedy,McGovern)and I think your post is BS. I'll be sure to send them a thank you for continuing to work to bring our troops home.

[mondo joe]

37. I'll be thanking Pelosi for getting legislation through.

Thank you for reminding me.

[yurbud]

41. since some of you think I'm retarded, please find the withdrawal deadline and benchmarks LINK

This is the actual bill as passed.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110s7UhKX::

I'm not saying it's not in there--I'm just having trouble finding it.

[yurbud]

44. No one is even going to TRY to defend the Blue Dogs? Okay, I'll let the cat out of the bag

I'm a Blue Dog congressman looking to steal staffers from my colleagues. If you had been more persuasive, I would have offered you twice your current pay, and access to a page.

[yurbud]

56. The letter I actually sent to Pelosi

Thank you for passing a bill that does a better job of taking care of our troops, and sets a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq.

I have a couple of concerns about the bill as passed though.

For one, one of the benchmarks is the Iraqis passing a hydrocarbon law. None of Iraq's oil rich neighbors would accept that law without a gun to their head, and Iraqi oil workers, scholars, and former bureaucrats have spoken out against it. Like the Iraqi constitution, the Hydrocarbon Law was drafted without much input from the Iraqi public but with plenty of pressure from the Bush administration to come up with the "right" answer. If you endorse that law, it will be proof to the world that our "War on Terror" is a lie used as an excuse to take control of Middle East oil.

The idea of benchmarks being met as conditions for the troops staying is ironic--poll after poll of Iraqis show that they WANT us to leave. They probably would get more done if the reward for meeting the benchmarks was us leaving.

Another provision that should be addressed again are the "limited" military actions you would allow Bush after "redeployment." Training Iraqi police and soldiers will never be effective so long as they perceive their job is to protect American interests, not Iraqis. That is unlikely to change as long as we are there. Perhaps even more problematic though is to allow Bush to continue to take "targeted" military action against al Qaeda in Iraq. In case you haven't noticed, this administration is pretty loose with their definitions of al Qaeda and even terrorists. The Army themselves admitted that they exaggerated the role of al Qaeda in Iraq for propaganda purposes in Washington Post article. And at one point, Bush's labor secretary said the teachers union I belong to was a terrorist organization.

I think you are trying hard to do the right thing on Iraq. But you should put your republican and blue dog critics in their place by saying they aren't supporting the troops by keeping them in Iraq--they are supporting Bush's cronies continued plunder of Iraq and America.

[EFerrari]

57. You bet. K&R

[Nutmegger]

59. R&K

Sending this to the greatest... :kick::applause::thumbsup:

[sasha031]

62. Just called Barney Frank's office

Told them what I thought of his vote which speaks volumes, I also said that there brilliant vote gave enough money for * to nuke Iran.

Told them I am 100% behind Kucinich and also said that they live in a bubble up in the hill and have no idea what's going on outside the bubble.

I use to respect Frank, still love Kerry, found out that Kennedy of all people has taken $ from coal and oil.

Who do you trust....

[cali]

64. You better strike Kerry off your list.

He's almost sure to support the counterpart of this legislation in the Senate. Love your little kick at Kennedy, who has done so much good over a long and distinguished career, too.

If you agree with Kucinich, and dismiss any other dem who doesn't tow that line, dem politics is certain to be increasingly frustrating for you.

[sasha031]

67. you misinterpreted what I said

I have always been so proud of Barney, Kennedy and Kerry. I am frustrated over the vote.

Did you catch the news 5 more dead and numerous others seriously injured.

I don't know what you were voting for, but mine was to bring the troops home Now....


"How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake"

[Marie26]

63. No thanks

Pelosi had to twist arms and plead in order to even get a timeline for withdraw. There's no way a bill to cut off funding would have passed this Congress. And this way, when Bush vetos it, he's the one who's cut off funding for the troops. It was a brilliant move by Pelosi, IMO.

[ComerPerro]

70. a lot of these people you mention are in Conservative areas, remember

[yurbud]

73. again, I'd be curious to see polls from those areas