The comments below are from a September 2006 article in The Hill before the Democrats assumed the majority:"I can’t stop this war," a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.
But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying,
"You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?"<snip>
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) has stated that
"Personally I wouldn’t spend another dime on the war," and notes that Congress helped force an end to the Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it.
John Conyers had the following to say regarding funding for the Iraq war:"He can't fire us," added the House Judiciary Committee chair, referencing the Congress that he said should block funding for Bush's plans to maintain his war.
"The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today. Not only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush."Pelosi indicated in December 2006 that the Democrats would not cut off funding for the Iraq war."We will not cut off funding for the troops," Pelosi said. "Absolutely not," she said. A reporter had asked Pelosi if the new Democratic-controlled Congress would vote to end the funding of the war if Democrats were unable to persuade President Bush to change his Iraq strategy.
"Let me remove all doubt in anyone’s mind; as long as our troops are in harm’s way, Democrats will be there to support them, but… we will have oversight over that funding," she said.
John P. Murtha is the Chair for the Defense Subcommittee for Appropriations.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/PRtestimony.html">The following is taken from his testimony before Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 23, 2007:
To achieve stability and security in Iraq, I believe we first must have a responsible phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. General William Odom (U.S. Army, Retired) recently testified, "We are pursuing the wrong war."
Stability and security in the Region should be our overarching strategy, not a "victory in Iraq." I agree with General Odom and believe that Regional Stability can only be accomplished through the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.
Who wants us to stay in Iraq? In my opinion, Iran and Al Qaeda, because we intensify the very radical extremism we claim to be fighting against, while at the same time depleting our financial and human resources.
<snip>
I recommend the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, first from Saddam’s palaces, then from the green zone. Next, from the prime real estate of Iraq’s major cities, out of the factories and universities, and finally out of the country all together. We need to give communities back to the Iraqis so they can begin to self govern, begin economic recovery and return to some type of normality. I recommend the adoption of a U.S policy that encourages and rewards reconstruction and regional investment and one that is dictated and administered not by the United States, but by the Iraqis themselves.
<snip>
For decades, the Army operated on a deployment policy that for every one year of deployment, two years were spent at home. This was considered optimal for re-training, re-equipping and re-constituting. Without relief, the Army will be forced to extend deployments to Iraq to over one year in country and will be forced to send troops back with less than one year at home. The Army reported that a 9-month deployment was preferable. Medical experts testified that in intensive combat, deployments of over 3 months increased the likelihood for service members to develop post traumatic stress disorders.
<snip>
I have said this before and I continue to say that there are essentially only two plans. One is to continue an occupation that has not worked and that has shown no progress toward stabilization. The other, which I advocate, is to
end the occupation of Iraq, redeploy and re-strengthen our military and turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
*************************Many people cite the decision by Congress to cut off funding as the reason for the end of the Vietnam War. However, I'm concerned that even cutting off the funding for the Iraq war will not stop Bush/Cheney. Remember Iran-Contra? When Congress cut off funding at that time, the "Enterprise" was created to continue to fund the Contras. Do we doubt that Bush/Cheney would do something similar?
On edit:
Added "please explain why" for those that vote NO.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
