home

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey on "Fully Funded Withdrawal"

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) of the Progressive Caucus on Iraq:

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq because President Bush refuses to recognize that it’s time to bring our troops home, his is a position that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American public. Democrats were elected in November in conservative districts across the country so that we could find an end to the war, and now the majority of the American public supports a time-bound withdrawal plan that ensures that our troops return home in a safe and orderly fashion.
It’s time to end our military occupation of Iraq, and it’s time to fully fund our withdrawal.

Conservatives have tried to portray the progressive position as one of cutting off funding for our troops in the field, and many have questioned our patriotism. Others have gone so far as to claim that we are working against our men and women in harm’s way. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we must stand up and confront their lies.

A fully funded withdrawal would ensure that our military commanders have any and all resources available to them to bring our troops home, while providing for their security during the process. This isn’t about cutting funding, this about providing the resources for an orderly withdrawal, allowing our troops to come home to their families, and for our military to regroup, and stand prepared to defend our country if, and when, we are truly faced with a threat to our national security.
< Ending The Iraq Debacle: What the Senate Can Do, What the House Should Do | Scooter Libby's Sentencing Guidelines >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Ok good, I take it you agree with the framing? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:00:57 PM EST


    My nephew is getting ready for his (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:28:18 PM EST
    third deployment to Iraq. He certainly agrees with this.

    Parent
    Godspeed (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:56:59 PM EST
    If (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:54:17 PM EST
    it works, I like it.

    Parent
    How can you be so sure (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by brainwave on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:33:44 PM EST
    that Woolsey's plan is yours - defunding as ceasing to fund the war? I mean, what Woolsey is saying here is certainly compatible with your proposal. More than that, when she's emphasizing funding for withdrawal, that at least implies no more funding for a continuation of the war. Still, she doesn't explicitly say that, does she? I mean, did you have any further contact with Woolsey or other members of the Out of Iraq caucus that makes you so sure that this is your plan? (I dearly hope you're right about this!)

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:53:19 PM EST
    you shoul reread.

    Parent
    I have (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by brainwave on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:17:54 PM EST
    She says "fully fund the withdrawal". She doesn't say "discontinue to fund anything but the withdrawal" - which is your interpretation, right? I don't mean to be obstinate, I'm just wondering how you can be so sure that Woolsey indeed is determined  to stop funding anything but the withdrawal. Sorry if I fail to get it.

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:56:22 PM EST
    How do you withdrawal fully and not withdrawal fully?

    Explain?

    Parent

    Got it (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by brainwave on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:15:58 PM EST
    And see also squeaky's point - in the post over at dKos she does say no appropriations except for withdrawal.

    Parent
    Cool (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:45:09 PM EST
    From the link (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:06:01 PM EST
    She doesn't say "discontinue to fund anything but the withdrawal"
    It is clear, from the link that it does.
    the only money I will support for Iraq is funding that is used for the withdrawal of every last US soldier and military contractor from Iraq.


    Parent
    That is indeed the money quote (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by brainwave on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:13:08 PM EST
    no pun intended :-) - thanks!

    Parent
    I live in her district (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:04:45 AM EST
    I couldn't be any happier with my representation.

    Well, except for Feinstein.

    Boxer, Woolsey, at least that's two out of three.

    Every time a Democrat says s/he ... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Meteor Blades on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:10:39 AM EST
    ...will fund anything besides withdrawal, s/he is saying that the additional soldiers and Marines who are killed between now and the time a withdrawal actually occurs are WORTH losing, that their deaths - and the maiming of others - are useful to the undefined mission that is U.S. Iraq policy.

    And, of course, a withdrawal WILL occur. Someday. Those of us who believe - based on four years of history - that nothing good will be accomplished between now and when a withdrawal DOES occur unfortunately don't have enough allies in Congress.

    The difference between what we, and BTD and elected Democrats like Woolsey are saying and what those who oppose funding a withdrawal are implicitly saying is clear enough: They are enablers of the cretins who believe it is unpatriotic blasphemy to say that those killed between March 2003 and March 2007 have had their lives wasted.

    I don't buy that, obviously. But, those previous deaths and injuries aside, only the morally deficient can claim that the dead and maimed who WILL die between today and when the withdrawal ACTUALLY occurs will not be wasted. People who oppose funding the withdrawal - and ONLY the withdrawal - must be counted among the wasters. Even if they are Democrats.

    Thanks for coming (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:24:03 AM EST
    to Talk Left.

    Parent
    Really good couple of posts today, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:13:52 AM EST
    Is Kucinich's H.R.1234 the vehicle for Woolsey's plans?

    Parent
    Prolly not (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:35:59 AM EST
    Why then the separate (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:42:41 AM EST
    game plans? If indeed they are separate.

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:01:15 AM EST
    David Swanson (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    Had an interesting article on ZNet Monday:
    Other possibilities for ending the war in the House include not passing a supplemental bill at all, or passing one of the four bills that have been introduced (by Representatives Lynn Woolsey, Jim McGovern, Jerrold Nadler, and Dennis Kucinich) that would use the power of the purse to try to bring the war to an end. There are also several bills that would instruct the President to end the war while continuing to fund it, an approach that seems more likely to pass both houses of Congress, but far less likely to achieve anything close to their stated goal.
    ...
    Congressman Kucinich's bill is brand new. The other three House bills have been in play for some weeks. While Congressman Nadler's bill does not have the support among his colleagues that Woolsey's and McGovern's do (thanks to both friendships and political alliances), Nadler has perhaps done the best job of crafting a bill in which Congress could make use of its undisputed power to end the war. While the other two bills first instruct Bush to end the war in a specific period of time, and only afterward forbid the use of additional funds for the war that is now theoretically over, Nadler's bill immediately restricts the use of any money appropriated by Congress to withdrawing the troops from Iraq.


    Parent
    Rep. Woolsey Gets Extra Credit (4.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:11:02 AM EST
    for being the first politician I've seen use the correct terminology for the fiasco in Iraq. Great framing all around. We are not defunding the occupation. We are fully funding our withdrawal as an occupation force in Iraq.

    It's time to end our military occupation of Iraq, and it's time to fully fund our withdrawal.

    Not sure how successful she will be in getting this enacted but she is definitely setting the standard on how the Dems need to address the issue. The war was over years ago. We are now an occupation force. You can not win or lose an occupation. You either remain an occupation force indefinitely or you end the occupation.