home

'Homeward Bound' Act Introduced to Bring Troops Home

With all the calls for an exit strategy from Iraq, maybe this bill introduced in Congress on Thursday could gather momentum. From Democracy Rising:

A Bi-partisan group of Members of Congress - two Republicans and two Democrats - introduced the Homeward Bound Act on June 16, 2005 to begin the process of putting in place an exit strategy from Iraq. The resolution calls for bringing the troops home no later than October 1, 2006. Below are statements from the website of three of the original co-sponsors. Two other Members immediately joined as sponsors Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Martin Meehan (D-MA).

< Inexcusable Pandering by Jeb Bush | Joe Biden to Run for Presidency in 2008 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: 'Homeward Bound' Act Introduced to Bring Troop (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    If you told misbehaving kids exactly when you were going to take your eye of them, what do you suppose would happen? If you come up with the right answer, now apply that to this truly stupid idea. Which, btw, is the same kind of "genius" that Northern Democrats preached all through 1862-1864. Things would have gone just swimmingly had we listened then, and they'll go every bit as well if we listen now.

    Re: 'Homeward Bound' Act Introduced to Bring Troop (none / 0) (#2)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    There are no comments from the two Repubs. They are too busy cleaning up their resumes for a job after they lose the next primary.

    Re: 'Homeward Bound' Act Introduced to Bring Troop (none / 0) (#3)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    JR So the insurgents are like "misbehaving" children. It must be hard to take up the White Mans Burden (sarcasm intended), with your "new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half child." To get serious for a second, Colin Powell laid out his criteria for military intervention in his Powell Doctrine. Its interesting to see how Bush's invasion of Iraq measures up to this criteria. As a last resort. One of the things that the Downing Street memo has revealed is that war with Iraq wasn’t the last resort but the first and only resort. Only if there is a well-defined national interest at stake. Saddam did not have WMDs. He did not have ties to Al Queda. This is a war in search of a rationale. It should be executed with overwhelming force. The problem wasn’t that we didn’t have enough force to defeat Saddam. The problem was in the postwar occupation. The Bush administration ignored the warning of military leaders, like General Shenseki, that there wasn’t enough troops to maintain order. A clear exit strategy. As Rep. Conyers notes (via Atrios) the Bush administration has no "'exit strategy' because no exit is planned." Strong public support. The majority of Americans now think that this war was a mistake and that number will just keep increasing. Now even Republicans are questioning Bush. On every single criteria, Iraq fails the test for military intervention laid out in the Powell Doctrine. It is tragic that so many Americans have lost their lives for a pack of lies. As Kenny Rogers once sang "you got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em... know when to walk away".

    Re: 'Homeward Bound' Act Introduced to Bring Troop (none / 0) (#4)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    Hey its not a stupid idea, but we got to get the people behind the ideals of freedom, not American freedom but the ideals that the iraqis like, but James Robertson is about right on the money. i just don't like the ideals of young and old Americans dying for that part of the world in a no-win-no-win war, if you can't fight it like world war two don't fight it at all, but this will mean nothing when 2 to 7 cities disappear into a nuclear hell becuase people don't understand this is a religious war, but i still say get out now and if we must fight here and fight to win, like the guys did in world war two. The holy writ means nothing to me, and the old testament was made for little people with little ideals and the new testament is also a joke for the mideast fools, and Bush may want this war to make god come back! and he maybe working for others who think like him, "Fools and murderous people.? fight for your own ideals not the ideals of others who do nothing but kill each other off by the millions and by the way this is The USA A Place that is meant not to be the world of little people but a place to be home for all who want to get away from evil, long live the ideals of 1776, hang the rats in washington from a tree all of the rats.

    John,
    So the insurgents are like "misbehaving" children
    As patronizing as this is, its kinder than what the Iraqis call them. The Powell Doctrine was not (maybe should have been) the basis of American policy in Iraq - thats why Colin left.
    A clear exit strategy. As Rep. Conyers notes (via Atrios) the Bush administration has no "'exit strategy' because no exit is planned."
    We had this chat in another thread - there is a clear strategy in motion: Democratic constitution supported by all parties while building the Iraqi Army to take over. You just do not agree with it.
    Strong public support. The majority of Americans now think that this war was a mistake and that number will just keep increasing. Now even Republicans are questioning Bush.
    How can public support not drop with the negative "if it bleeds, it leads" coverage of the MSM? If a car bomb isn't going off, or an American being killed - it just really isn't news. Some alternated views for those interested: : The Legal Factor (Egypt); Sunnis; More Sunnis; Sunnis betray Al Queda?; Grounds for Hope and Thank you America (Saudi); Tikreet; No American Gulag; Step by Step; and Cartoon from Iraq; Feb 12, 2004 This will give folks some links to some newspapers in the Middle East, and some bloggers. For the huge list: Future of Iraq Portal Your doom and gloom is not justified

    Re: 'Homeward Bound' Act Introduced to Bring Troop (none / 0) (#6)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    Fleet, When I think of an exit strategy, the operative word is "exit". Waiting for the Iraqis to have a government in place that is supported "by all parties" and for the Iraqi army to take over isn't an exit strategy. Its a getting bogged down strategy. Its a strategy for guaranteeing American casualties for an almost indefinite period of time. When Condoleeza Rice was asked today “the Bush administration fairly [can] be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult this commitment will be?” her reply was "[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq." Staying in Iraq for 30 years isn't exiting, its getting stuck.

    John Actually the word "strategy" does imply a process - as opposed to "tactics". What you want is immediate disengagement - which is not a "strategy": but retreat (maybe there is a nicer word) or abandonment in my view. Its been a pleasure though - people with opposing views should be able to trade information and positions without personal attack

    Fleet: "there is a clear strategy in motion: Democratic constitution supported by all parties while building the Iraqi Army to take over." Did you leave out the permanent airbases part for a reason? Because Bush does, to this day. He seems to be unable to mouth true words --- it's against his religion or something. "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories." -- H. F* Kissinger, early 2004 "If we are building military bases, we do not intend to withdraw all our troops. Simple as that." -- Gary Hart, May 10, 2005 "We now have 15 permanent airbases in Iraq, and the United States has NO legitimate longterm policy for staying in Iraq." -- John Kerry, 2004 debate 1 Invading a country to establish airbases violates the UN charter, the Geneva Conventions, the War Powers Act (and other US law), and the Constitution (the war powers of the people belong to Congress, not the executive). So it is very telling that you, who are SO PATRONIZING in pointing out only half the story, seem not to know dick about Dick Cheney, or which bush Bush hid behind when 9i1 went down, among other matters. Lying like that must take some training.

    Re: 'Homeward Bound' Act Introduced to Bring Troop (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    This is a war in search of a rationale.
    The most apt description of the occupation I have ever heard. Well said John.

    Paul in LA, Good rhetoric - hang on to it. NONE of it matches the processes going on in Iraq right now. But then, why cloud the issues with facts.

    Re: 'Homeward Bound' Act Introduced to Bring Troop (none / 0) (#11)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Fleet, Perhaps you can clarify what Bush's goal is in regards to establishing a government. Is his goal to #1 establish a government that will restore order? #2 A government that is democratic and representative? Or both? Based on his rhetoric, Bush seems to favor option #3, which is the costliest in terms of casualties and the amount of time it will take to implement (if it is indeed achievable). Bush has run out of time because the American public has finally run out of patience with his false promises. What we will probably end up is a government similar to what we now have in Iraq. A government which is basically pro-Iranian and anti-American. For example, the leader of Iraq's largest political party just visited Iran where he said that Iran "enjoys cultural and religious privileges that other states are deprived of." Is this what over 1700 Americans died for? By the way, I think a stronger exit strategy is the one suggested by Juan Cole today calling for the UN to take over. I have my doubts about that too, but I think it has a better chance of succeeding than Bush.