House Vote Today on Iraq

The House plan to keep Bush on a short leash is dividing Congressional Republicans:

The White House acknowledged public frustration with the Iraq war but tried to play down Republican anxieties
. . .
The White House confirmed that Bush held an unannounced meeting this week with House Republican moderates who expressed deepening concerns about the war. Several participants described a remarkably blunt discussion in which lawmakers told the president the war was unsustainable without public support, and was having a corrosive effect on GOP political fortunes.

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow refused to discuss details of the meeting but said, "Of course there are frustrations."

Bush, however, still refuses to change course:

The White House threatened on Wednesday to veto a proposed House bill that would pay for the Iraq war only through July
. . .
The warnings came as Gates also told reporters that his evaluation of force levels in Iraq in September will not lead to a rapid troop withdrawal, and that at least some U.S. forces are likely to be in Iraq for a protracted period of time.

But House Democrats aren't backing down:

The bill is hotly contested by the White House, opposed by nearly all Republicans and unlikely to survive in the Senate. But House Democratic leaders say the measure shows they refuse to back down in challenging President Bush on a deeply unpopular and costly war.

"The president refuses to listen to the American people who want this war to end," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said.

We agree. But if House Democrats want to end the war, a better strategy is to pass a funding bill that uses the power of the purse to limit the use of funds to protecting our troops' safety and bringing them home. That's the solution favored by the Working Families Party and the American people.

Tell your U.S. Representative to do just that and bring them home.

Then vote on what you think will happen:

Supplemental Negotiations Continue

The House has taken the lead, and is proposing keeping Bush on a short leash:

In addition to the two months of Iraq funding, the bill would provide a $10 billion cushion to allow the military flexibility. It would also require the president to report back to Congress by July 13 on the extent to which the Iraqi government had met certain benchmarks for progress.

The plan would "fence off" additional combat funds until Congress voted to "unfence" them. Such a vote would be held on July 24.
. . .
One of the private meetings was with members of the Out of Iraq Caucus, who seemed pleased with the proposal, aides said.

The Senate seems a little reluctant to follow suit:

While the House could narrowly pass the measure, it is unlikely to find similar backing in the Senate, where some leading Democrats say they want to fund the war through September.
. . .
Numerous other ideas are being floated in the Senate, most of which involve some combination of goals the Iraqi government must reach. The key impasse, however, is whether to require the withdrawal of U.S. troops if the benchmarks are not met.

Congressional Republicans are trying to have it both ways, sticking with Bush but saying one day they might admit things aren't working. Here's House Minority Leader John Boehner:

Boehner said Bush's troop increase deserves a chance and should be funded even if benchmarks for success are not met.
. . .
"We don't even have all of the 30,000 additional troops in Iraq yet, so we're supporting the president. We want this plan to have a chance of succeeding," Boehner said.

"Over the course of the next three to four months, we'll have some idea how well the plan's working. Early signs are indicating there is clearly some success on a number of fronts," he said.

But, he added, "By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Thus far, Republicans have stood behind the president's increasingly unpopular war policies, including the troop increase and an open-ended war commitment.

Yet Boehner's comments were an acknowledgment of the concern expressed by some lawmakers in private that their support could further damage the party, which lost control of Congress in the November elections.

New York's Rep. Charles Rangel gets it right:

"It would be ridiculous to think that we're going to just drop this fight . . . This is not our fight. This is the American people's fight. They asked us to send a message to the president . . . We've got to have some restrictions on the money."

What do you think will happen?

Mission, um, Accomplished?

Four years after Bush landed on an aircraft carrier to tell us that the mission in Iraq was accomplished, he's vetoed Congress' supplemental budget bill for Iraq.

Congressional Republicans are so far siding with Bush to uphold the veto. But they're not also starting to hedge their bets:

"There are some types of benchmarks that might well achieve bipartisan support and might actually even conceivably be helpful to the efforts in Iraq," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

But Republicans were reluctant to say whether they supported benchmarks with real consequences. Some said they would support tying benchmarks to foreign aid to Iraq totaling more than $5 billion but nothing that would tie the hands of military commanders.

"It depends on what the benchmarks are and what the consequences are," said Trent Lott of Mississippi, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate.

Even as they win more public support, Congressional Democrats don't yet have the votes to override Bush's veto. So they're discussing what comes next:

Hoyer was reluctant to say exactly what the bill will look like, but said he anticipates a minimum-wage increase will be part of it. He also said the bill should fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt that Democratic leaders would adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha, R-Pa., to fund the war two or three months at a time.
. . .
The party's most liberal members, especially in the House, say they will vote against money for continuing the war if there's no binding language on troop drawdowns. The bill Bush rejected would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
. . .
Numerous possible compromises are being floated on Capitol Hill, all involving some combination of benchmarks. Some would require Bush to certify monthly that the Iraqi government is fully cooperating with U.S. efforts in several areas, such as giving troops the authority to pursue extremists. Others would require an Iraqi-run program to disarm militias and a plan to distribute oil revenues fairly among the various population groups.

The key impasse in Congress is whether to require redeployments of U.S. troops if the benchmarks are not met. Many Democrats insist on it, and many Republicans vow not to budge. It's far from clear whether Bush would accept such an approach.

Under one proposal being floated, unmet benchmarks would cause some U.S. troops to be removed from especially violent regions such as Baghdad. They would redeploy to places in Iraq where they presumably could fight terrorists but avoid the worst centers of Sunni-Shia conflict.

Still another possibility would change the bill that Bush vetoed only by allowing the president to waive the redeployment requirements under certain conditions

A new spending bill "has got to be tied to redeployment," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., the House's fourth-ranking Democratic leader. Emanuel conceded, however, that Democrats have yet to figure out where they will find the votes.

What do you think will happen?

Iraq Supplemental: Veto Watch

Congress is close to passing the Iraq supplemental budget bill, which Bush will promptly veto. And then? From the Washington Post:

House Democrats are beginning to coalesce around a $19 billion bill -- enough to fund the war for about 60 days -- without any withdrawal dates, according to aides. The measure would include additional funds for military health care; new standards for resting, training and equipping troops before deployment; and prohibitions on torture and permanent bases in Iraq. Benchmarks would be included, but with no punishments for failing to meet them.

The idea would be to pass the measure quickly, as soon as early next week, to deprive Bush of the argument that Democrats are withholding needed funds from the troops. Then negotiations would begin immediately on yet another bill.

Congressional Democrats have the backing of the American public to end the war. They'd be in a better position now if they had taken the popular position from the start, held by the Working Families Party and many others, and used the power of the purse to limit the use of funds to protecting our troops' safety and bringing them home. Still, they're taking steps toward ending the war.

How do you think this plays out?

Honor the Peacemakers

Congratulations go out to the Capital District WFP Chapter. The Chapter honored Congressman Michael McNulty, Albany District Attorney David Soares and Community Activist Charles LaCourt last week at their annual fundraiser. The keynote speaker was Anne Mulderry from September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

An extra round of applause for the Fundraising Committee. This team of members made the night a HUGE success - turning out 227 Chapter members, local elected officials, labor leaders and peace activists and raising $20,000. Here they are:

• Mike Iannone for countless hours of phone calls.
• Ed Hennessy for his dedication in reaching out to labor and proofreading all the honoree bios.
• Steve Redler for his wealth of experience and willingness to impart all that he knew knew to the rest of the committee.
• Anita Thayer for her poise under pressure and stressful situations.
• Nina Esaki for her constant optimism amidst adversity - and willingness to do turnout calls even while at the airport!
• And "Mike" Michelson who dedicated every spare second to making this event a success, even though she wasn't even ON the committee. Her relationships in the peace community helped with turnout and delivered a phenomenal keynote speaker.

And I want to share the closing lines Anne Mulderry keynote speech:

"I have hoped that the great blessings of freedom that we have been given as citizens of the United States would not be abused, but would be vibrantly employed to urge the citizenry ever further toward our country's highest ideals. The Working Families Party marches under that banner.

I thank you all for doing what you do, and I thank you, too, for inviting me here tonight to be a part of what you do."

It's worth reading the whole speech.

For me, the highlight of the event was when the young lady tending the bar approached me after the program. She told me she hed been moved by our program and asked how she could sign up to become a member. We welcome Yolanda to our Chapter with open arms!

The New York State Working Families Party Spring Gala is this Thursday, May 3rd. Buy your ticket today!

Iraq Supplemental: What Next

Congress is scheduled to vote this week on the final version of the Iraq supplemental budget bill. The bill stops short of using the power of the purse to limit the use of funds to protecting our troops' safety and bringing them home, which is the Working Families position. But it still takes steps toward bringing our troops home. That's enough for Bush to threaten to veto the bill. And that means we're approaching another moment of truth in the debate over Iraq.

Rep. Jim McDermott gets it right when he says:

"My feeling is at a certain point we're going to have a 'come-to-Jesus' moment in the caucus and talk about whether you fund (the war) or not."

Exactly right. Now is the time to hold fast to our principles.

Tell your U.S. Representative to limit the use of funds to protecting our troops' safety and bringing them home now.

Tonight: Representative Nadler on Iraq

The Columbia University Working Families Party Chapter is cosponsoring an event tonight featuring U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler and Todd Gitlin, a 60s activist, author and Columbia Journalism professor.

They'll talk about ending the war in Iraq and what withdrawal means for Middle East geopolitical stability.

Thursday, April 5, at 8pm
Columbia University
Barnard Hall, Room 304

Cosponsored by the Columbia University Working Families Party Chapter and the Columbia Coalition Against the War.

How Many Sides In Iraq's Civil War?

That's the question raised by a Pentagon report on Iraq:

The war in Iraq has been characterized by fighting between the majority Shiite Muslim sect and the minority Sunni Muslims, who were in power under Saddam Hussein's regime.

But the report also cites Shiite-on-Shiite violence; al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and "widespread criminally motivated violence" as features that complicate the designation of civil war.

So Shiites are fighting Shiites, Shiites are fighting Sunnis, Sunnis are fighting us and violent crime is running rampant. Why are our troops left in the middle of this? It's time to bring them home.

Email your Representative.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

Hold Democrats' Feet to the Fire

Iraq is in utter chaos. It's a civil war, with American troops caught in the crossfire. The Bush Doctrine of "preemptive war" was morally and strategically stupid, and the dead and wounded are the visible result of his hubris. It's past time for the Democrats running Congress to force Bush to change strategy and bring the troops home.

This war won't end until Congress uses its power of the purse to limit the use of funds to protecting our troops' safety and bringing them home. Non-binding resolutions are not enough. And it's a mistake to continue to let Bush and Cheney have their way.

Last month, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution opposing George Bush's plan to escalate American involvement in Iraq. Next up: A vote on funding for the war. Democrats want to take a baby step forward, Working Families is pushing them to do better and do the right thing for our troops.

Tell your U.S. Representative to limit the use of funds to protecting our troops' safety and bringing them home now.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

House Dem's Supplemental Made Public

Talking Points Memo has posted the House Democrats' Leadership Bill for the supplemental budget. The short version is it includes a deadline for bringing the troops home, but doesn't have the teeth to make it stick. From TPM:

House leaders will argue that the bill does do its job, because it declares the war illegal beyond a certain date. But liberal House sources say this removed language was critical in ending the war in practice, because it would enforce the war's end with the power of the purse rather than requiring a trip to court to force an end to the war should Bush insist on keeping it going in defiance of the legislation.

If this is the best the House is willing to pass right now, it's not enough. We need to keep pushing, and they need to do better. It's past time for Congress to limit the use of funds to protecting our troops' safety and bringing them home now.

Email your Representative

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

Counting the Cost at Home

Time for a quick quiz: How many days of current military spending would it take to expand health care coverage to every child and pregnant woman in the U.S.?

Answer in the comments.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq | Health Care

Limit the Mission

House Democrats are moving forward with their plan to end the war through a "Readiness Strategy" that limits the number of soldiers that can be sent to Iraq by requiring that troops be sent to Iraq with proper equipment and training. Bush regularly sends troops to war without the equipment they need and without training for the mission they're embarking on.

Now Senate Democrats are discussing an alternate strategy to limit the authority granted Bush by the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the war.

Working Families supports limiting the use of funds to protecting our troops' safety and bringing them home.

With the differing approaches, expect more discussion on what comes next. The positive is these approaches aren't mutally exclusive. How do we pursue all three at once and bring the troops home?

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

Blair Bringing British Troops Home

Tony Blair is rejecting George Bush's escalation strategy and bringing British troops home. Blair is bringing 1,600 British troops home now - that's around a quarter of the British troops still in Iraq - with 3,000 more to come home by the end of 2007 and the rest to follow in 2008.

Senator Kennedy gets it right:

"No matter how the White House tries to spin it, the British government has decided to split with President Bush and begin to move their troops out of Iraq. This should be a wake up call to the administration.
. . .
Eighteen other countries have already withdrawn or dramatically reduced their troop presence in Iraq. A majority of the American people voted last November for a changed policy in Iraq. A majority of the House and the Senate, a unanimous Baker- Hamilton Commission and numerous generals have rejected the Administration's policy in Iraq. And now our country's strongest ally has rejected it."

But the Bush administration still refuses to face facts.

From Condoleezza Rice:

"The coalition remains intact and, in fact, the British still have thousands of troops deployed in Iraq."

Those British troops are leaving, and they're leaving for a good reason.

And from Dick Cheney:

"I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well."

Give me a break. Or, better yet, bring U.S. troops home now and call it an affirmation that things are going pretty well. But let's not kid ourselves: Iraq is in a civil war, George Bush won't face reality, and our troops are paying the price. Congress needs to force Bush to change course and bring the troops home.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

House Votes NO on Surge

Today the House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution that says NO to George Bush's plan to increase American involvement in Iraq, 246 to 182. Now the real fight over the war's budget can start.

See who voted which way.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

House Votes Today on Iraq Resolution

The U.S. House is set to vote today on a resolution opposing George Bush's plan to escalate American involvement in Iraq. Today's vote to say NO to escalation is a self-described "first step" by House Democrats towards bringing the troops home.

The WFP agrees that sending more of our troops into harm's way is wrong, and that our U.S. Representatives need to take this first step towards bringing our troops home.

More details are emerging on the next steps that House Democrats have planned to bring the troops home (read this post for background).

The powerful speaker of the House of Representatives, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, said she will support money for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan only if the Pentagon meets strict standards of rest, training and equipment for the soldiers.
. . .
"If we are going to support our troops, we should respect what is considered reasonable for them: their training, their equipment and their time at home," Pelosi said, according to the Post.

"What we're trying to say to the president is, you can't send people in who are not trained for urban warfare . . . who are not prepared to contend with an insurgency."

The all-volunteer US military is already stretched thin and unable to supply enough armored vehicles or body armor for all deployed soldiers, according to published reports.
. . .
Her remarks coincided with a similar statement Thursday by Representative John Murtha, a Pelosi ally and war critic.

Murtha, who heads a key budget subcommittee that can block funds to the military, said he wants the troops to spend at least one year at home between deployments, would end a program forcing soldiers to remain in the military after their contracts expired, and would make sure the soldiers are fully "combat ready" before heading into a war zone.

More on Murtha in this article:

Democrats say the votes are the first step toward forcing Bush to change course in a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops and lost favor with voters.

"This country needs a dramatic change of course in Iraq and it is the responsibility of this Congress to consummate that change," said Rep. John Murtha, who chairs the House panel that oversees military spending.

Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, is preparing legislation that would set strict conditions on combat deployments, including a year rest between combat tours; ultimately, the congressman says, his measure would make it impossible for Bush to maintain his planned deployment of a total of about 160,000 troops for months on end.

Finally, here's an online briefing by Rep. Murtha on what comes next:



Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

More on the "Readiness Strategy"

Following up on yesterday's post on Iraq, Rep John Murtha discussed requiring that military units meet formal Army readiness standards of training and equipment before they're deployed to Iraq. Since Bush wants to deploy troops to Iraq without training and body armor, this would counter the proposed escalation.

In today's House debate, Bush's proposal to escalate American involvement in Iraq drew criticism from House Republicans. The most telling comments from the Republican side came from Florida Representative Ric Keller:

"Imagine your next-door neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weeds are all the way up to his waist, so you decide you're going to mow his lawn for him every single week . . . The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots you. Under these circumstances, do you keep mowing his lawn for ever?"

And the U.S. Senate is getting back into the act, announcing that they will start debate this Saturday on the anti-escalation resolution after the House votes this Friday.

Before Friday's House vote, make sure you tell your Representative to keep going until the troops come home.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

Democrats' Iraq "Readiness Strategy"

With the House debate on Iraq in Day 2, new details of the Democratic strategy to end the war are becoming public. From Politico.com:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.
. . .
Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It's worth reading the whole article.

We'll get to see this strategy in action here in New York, as Republican Reps Randy Kuhl and Vito Fossella decide how they're going to vote. New York Republicans Tom Reynolds, Peter King and John McHugh have decided to vote for expanding American involvement in Iraq, while James Walsh is going to abandon his Republican colleagues and vote to oppose the Bush expansion plan. From Newsday:

Two of New York's Republican lawmakers stayed on the fence Tuesday as Congress began debating a resolution opposing a troop increase in Iraq - a measure that could have more sway over their political futures than on U.S. fighting forces.

We'll let New York Rep Charlie Rangel have the last word:

"Today, you have to decide whether or not you want this war to continue, and how many people have to die . . . [the resolution opposing escalation] is not going to hurt our beloved warriors, it's going to help our country, it's going to help them."

Right on.

What do you think? Ending the war is the important thing - is this plan the way to do it?

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

House Debate on Iraq: Day One

The U.S. House of Representatives is debating George Bush's plan to increase American involvement in Iraq.

Democrats plan to take a self-described "first step towards reducing American participation in the war" this week and pass a nonbinding resolution that says NO to escalation.

Working Families agrees that sending more of our troops into harm's way is wrong, but we're not satisfied with nonbinding resolutions. We want the troops brought home from Iraq.

There's reason to believe we're moving in that direction. Some of the highlights from today's debate include Rep. Jerry Nadler (via MyDD):

"That is why this resolution must be only the first step.

In the Supplemental Budget we will consider next month, we should exercise the only real power we have - the Congressional power of the purse. We will not cut off the funds, and leave our troops defenseless before the enemy, as the demagogues would imply, but we should limit the use of the funds we provide to protecting the troops while they are in Iraq and to withdrawing them on a timetable mandated in the law. We should provide funds to rebuild the army and to raise our readiness levels, for diplomatic conferences in case there is any possibility of negotiating an end to the Iraqi civil war, and for economic reconstruction assistance, but above all, we must use the power of the purse to mandate a timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

We must use the power the people have entrusted to us. The best way to protect our troops is to withdraw them from the middle of a civil war they cannot win, and that is not our fight."

and Rep. Louise Slaughter (via Daily Kos):

"This resolution - and the debate this week - is only the beginning.
. . .
In March, for example, we will consider the President's supplemental funding request. Soon afterward, we will consider the regular authorization and appropriations bills for the war. All of these debates will be detailed and significant.

But before we go forward, we must first know where we stand. Our goal this week is to clearly establish whether Congress agrees or disagrees with the President's current approach to Iraq. If the answer is no, then we will have the basis for forcing a change in that approach.

It is my most sincere hope that the vote we take on Friday will be the first of many that will help produce a better end to the war in Iraq than the one our current course will produce."

Rep. Slaughter's whole speech is on YouTube:



If you agree that we need to bring the troops home, let your U.S. Representative know.

And if you have a favorite speech or line from today's debate, share it in the comments.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

House Debate on Iraq Starts

The House debate on Iraq has started - watch it on C-SPAN. What do you think needs to be done?

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq

Because I Told Them It Had To

George Bush has tried his "surge" strategy in Iraq before, and it didn't work. So you might be wondering why George Bush's plan to increase American involvement in Iraq will work this time. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had the same question, so she asked him.

"He's tried this two times - it's failed twice," the California Democrat [Pelosi] said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.'"

Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, "'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

This has gone on far to long. Our Representatives in the House need to step up and take action.

Tell your U.S. Representative to say NO to George Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.

Technorati tags: Working Families Party | Iraq