While, again, I am painfully aware that funding one more day in Iraq is not what many of us wish to see, just as with the House Supplemental that passed on Friday last, this bill marks for the first time in four years that the United States Senate has offered any BINDING language that even suggested that we should end the occupation of Iraq. Make no mistake, this was a UNITED Democratic Caucus which included the votes of certain members who have never spoken (never mind voted) for a troop withdrawal before (Bayh, Biden, Cantwell, Conrad, Landrieu, Nelson). Also, to be clear, this language from the Senate is not yet secure as the overall spending bill has yet to be voted on and there is a real possibility that it could fail; placing this historic vote on the junk pile of discarded good intentions. However, should this bill pass the Senate, it will meet up with the House bill in a Conference Committee. At that point, it would be certain that some form of withdrawal language would be forwarded to the Whitehouse. George W. Bush would then be forced to accept the pepole's will to exit Iraq or exercise his threatened veto which would, in effect, say that he would deny the troops he claims to support the vital funds that Defense Secretary Gates says they will desperately need by April 15th.
Asking people to support continued funding for Iraq is painful, however that is exactly where I find myself today. I am asking those who wish to see us end our occupation of Iraq to contact their senators to thank them for standing firm today and to ask them to continue that stance on the final vote for the supplemental. The time has come to call out George W. Bush. By forcing him to face the American people who voted overwhelmingly for change in November, to say he is willing to deny funding for the troops rather than accept accountability for his failed policies, we have the chance to end the days of blank checks and rubber stamps.
I am reminded of some saying about a long journey beginning with one step.....
[Update 3-29-07; 8:30am PST] The Senate's Emergency Supplemental has just passed by a vote of 51-47. More to follow. TLS
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
3 comments:
I was surprised and pleased that the timeline was kept in.
Chad, is this bill different from what was passed in the house, in that troop withdrawal commences in four months?
The way I understand this, the final "leave Iraq" date is September 2008. Iraqi failure to meet certain benchmarks, supposedly brings us out earlier -- but we have to rely on George Bush to carry out the law. And of course he will avoid carrying out any law he disagrees with.
What I most fear from this extended timeline -- which leave so much to the discretion of Mr. Bush, is that this administration will find a way to start war with Iran -- and then claim that changes everything, that national security then demands a permanent presence.
Noemie, if they start a freakin war with Iran, all bets are off. You can pretty much kiss democracy goodbye at that point. I really don't see Cheney allowing this new war to go down like Nam did. He's out for blood, and he will seize every ounce of power he can as long as we're in the thick of it.
I suggest we all start calling our Senators to demand they add a "No attacking Iran" clause in this bill.
Noemie,
Actually this bill is more agressive than the House bill in that "final re-deployment" is March, 2008 rather than August or September.
Of course the language in the Senate version is considered to be more along the lines of non-binding guidlines that could be circumvented if the benchmarks are met.
Jeff,
I am very concerned about Iran but unfortunately this administration has already shown that they are not above lying to get what they want.
With all the naval activity in the Persian Gulf, we can expect a Gulf of Tolkin claim just about any day now. We can only hope that the Democratic majority will clamp down immediately and not rush into another resolution allowing military action without complete and independent oversight.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Post a Comment