home

Out of Iraq Caucus to Unveil Iraq Proposal

Via Greg Sargent, after not reaching agreement with Dem leadership, the Out Of Iraq Caucus will unveil its Iraq proposal tomorrow:

[The Out of Iraq Caucus is] going to present their plan to the public. Tomorrow morning, a group of them -- including Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler and others -- will hold a press conference to detail the specifics of their plan. It'll be interesting to see how the House Dem leadership reacts.

As we also reported yesterday, the liberal Dems are privately circulating a "dear colleague" letter designed to win over other House members to their approach[:]

Dear Colleague,

We write to share our thoughts with you about Congressional action regarding the ongoing occupation of Iraq and to make the case for fully funding the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq over a clear timeline.

By framing their discussion of the war in terms of winning and losing, the Bush administration seeks to portray critics of their policies as opposed to victory, or supportive of defeat.

. . . There is no question that moving to stop this folly carries a political risk - the accusation that Democrats gave up on the Vietnam War, despite all evidence that it was an unwinnable conflict, hurt the party's credibility on national security issues for a generation.

But we must consider the very real cost of not acting. We are spending $8 billion a month occupying Iraq, with an average of 67 U.S. troops being killed and 500 being wounded. The cost to our security of having our military bogged down in Iraq indefinitely is unsustainable, and is not only sapping vital funds from efforts to fight global terrorism, but is strengthening jihadist recruitment efforts internationally. The longer we allow the administration to delay meaningful movement, and the longer we fail to extract ourselves from this quagmire, the more dangerous this failed foreign policy becomes to America and the rest of the world.

. . . Congress is going to have to act decisively to end this occupation and to bring troops home. Bush has bet his legacy on an unnecessary war that his administration has botched at every turn. His escalation plan is a plan to pass the buck. If anyone thinks that it will be easy for the next President, even a Democrat, to quickly extricate our nation from the mess Bush has made, he or she is just wrong. Congress is going to have to act, either sooner or later.

The Bush administration argues that Congressional action on Iraq either constitutes micromanagement or cutting off funding for troops in the field, but let's look at the facts. Fully funding withdrawal is not micromanagement, it is macromanagement - the Bush administration has so badly managed this effort that they have forced Congress to intervene.

Love the last graf.

< Libby Juror Calls for Pardon | Broder's Bipartisanship: Ignore Issues Where There is Disagreement >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Fund the withdrawl (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:16:27 PM EST
    We are spending $8 billion a month occupying Iraq, with an average of 67 U.S. troops being killed and 500 being wounded.

    That's why they love perpetual war.  They probably figure troop loss pays for itself or something equally immoral.

    Hey, Haliburton can get in on it.

    At this point (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:18:32 PM EST
    they don't want to admit the war is lost.

    Parent
    Hmm, gaming this out (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:21:17 PM EST
    Pelosi could go back to the President and say "I tried, but I can't give you a budget unless we can come to an agreement on a timeline. We can't even give you another continuing resolution." Or, she'll have to buy off Republicans to vote for a different budget, and that one could be really painful for the majority, especially come the next election.

    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:25:21 PM EST
    Be the counterpressure to the Blue Dogs.

    Parent
    Yeah, eat that Rham and Steny! n/t (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    This is what will work (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:34:54 PM EST
    The  Kumbaya Caucus will leave the playing field to the Blue Dogs.

    Just stupid strategy.

    Parent

    So to get this straight (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by retriever on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:35:42 PM EST
    The out of Iraq group is prepared to block any proposal that doesn't "fully fund withdrawal" and the Blue dogs are prepared to block any proposal they believe "doesn't support the troops" and the 'pubs won't support any proposal that has additional "earmarks" they want a "clean" bill.

     In the meantime Bush is going to need some money pretty damn soon. What happens if nobody can reach a consensus?

    Parent

    The war ends. n/t (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:37:01 PM EST
    The strategy unfolds . . . (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:39:30 PM EST
    It seems possible... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by joliberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:27:38 PM EST
    because it is the one strategy that doesn't require any of the factions to accually agree on anything.

    Parent
    Defunding (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:37:32 PM EST
    of the Iraq Debacle.

    Parent
    I've been going at this all wrong (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by retriever on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:49:05 PM EST
    I always thought that if you could figure out "blameless" end to the war it would come much faster. Instead we have the blame everyone strategy. All parties can blame someone else. Interesting. Every day that goes by without consensus puts more heat on the Blue dogs and Repubs does it not?

    Parent
    The ISG (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:54:15 PM EST
    was the "blameless" strategy.

     Bush said no to it.

    Parent

    And that is something I will never (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by mentaldebris on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:45:20 AM EST
    understand. How sad that this quagmire seems to be in part driven by Daddy and Junior's dysfunctional relationship and Cheney's ability to game it.

    For a moment I thought Bush would grab the lifesaver the ISG provided. He has proven over and over that he is not a smart man.

    Parent

    Hey there are some Dems with a spine! (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by retriever on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:21:18 PM EST
     I hope they continue that frame used in the last graf. Making about supporting the troops and not supporting the leadership instead of the backwards way it is now.

    Good point (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:24:14 PM EST
    But mostly it has to put the Dem Leadership on the spot.

    They need to feel pressure from the f olks who want out of Iraq. 2/3 of America.

    Parent

    correction (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by orionATL on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    "we are we are the only nation concerned ..."

    should read

    "we are not the only nation concerned ..."

    Without knowing the details (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by mikeyshriver on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:33:05 PM EST
    I am inclined to believe Rep Pelosi is in the mix doing the right thing.  I say this because I fear that in the absence of such comment to the affirmative that the echo chamber builds up such a loud rhetorical sound to the negative regardless of accuracy.

    If m member proves my faith in her wrong, it will be completely unacceptable. She already knows how I feel and what I want her to do.  The district has equally been quite vocal and visible in our belief about the war.

    She may be (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:38:46 PM EST
    but that means everyone has arole to play.

    Activists and Netroots need to clamor for the end of the war, by not funding the Debacle.

    Parent

    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by mikeyshriver on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:12:06 PM EST
    See my comments in your other diary regarding the surge.  Enabling behavior begins at home.  We need to stop enabling.  Agitate, educate, organize, and demand.

    Parent
    on NBC tonight... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by annefrank on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:47:19 PM EST
    U.S. soldiers were 'surging' door to door seeking help in finding the culprits of an attack. Iraqis were refusing to help them because - America has destroyed Iraq, want us to leave, etc.

    They'll have to arrest (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:55:21 PM EST
    half of the country.

    Parent
    Last line is great. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by joliberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:50:43 PM EST
    I like to remind people who are distraught over defunding that this is an issue entirely of Bush's making. The Dems have been backed into a corner and the Republicans are betting that they won't have the spine to use their funding power. I can't wait to see what the caucus proposes, though I'm far from optimistic about much right now.

    It's the worst option (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:53:12 PM EST
    except for all the rest.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:57:52 PM EST
    The key is that Bush can't write his own budget. If he's as obstinate  as usual, the war will end very fast, because there's no way that Pelosi will be willing to have a budget passed by Republicans + Blue Dogs.

    Parent
    The pressure is on the 'pubs and the blue dogs (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by retriever on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:01:56 PM EST
    to get something done. The out of Iraq group can sit tight. Right?

    Parent
    I think this is right (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:10:19 PM EST
    And gets the Blue Dogs off the hook if they so wish to be aligned with Bush.

    Parent
    Blue Dogs are divided on (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by prairiefire on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:43:34 PM EST
    Iraq. Music to my ears.
    The lack of consensus among the Blue Dogsl underscores the tough position in which House moderates often find themselves: unhappy with the course of leadership but unable to unite behind an alternate approach.

    Leaving a meeting last week, some Blue Dogs were exasperated that they remained so divided on Iraq.
    ...
    Many Blue Dogs argue that it doesn't matter that they do not agree on Iraq because they are fundamentally a group dedicated to fiscal responsibility, not foreign policy.

    Sargent is now reporting in an addendum to his original piece that Dem leadership is having their own morning press conference. It sounds to me like the momentum may be moving to the side of the angels. We could sure use a lot of noise from the blogs going forward to cover their backs.

    Say... (none / 0) (#30)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:13:18 AM EST
    who are your new friends?

    BTD (none / 0) (#31)
    by dkmich on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:54:49 AM EST
    Just wanted to say hello.  I'll be back, as Ahnold would say.