HR 455: "Protect the Troops and Bring Them Home Act of 2007"
Found out about this at the Democracy for NYC meeting in my neighborhood last night. And let me take this opportunity to say that if you aren't working with your local DFA group, you really SHOULD be. They do good work and they really started the surge of the grassroots that grew out of the Dean movement.
New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler has introduced one of the better Congressional Bills regarding the Iraq War. Most of the bills introduced specifically aim to block the Bush/McCain escalation of the war. Nadler specifically aims to bring the troops home in a safe, responsible way.
I met Congressman Nadler at a National Jewish Democratic Committee breakfast a couple of years ago. My son, then very young, liked him and Nadler regaled us with a story of a local legislator giving a long speech holding another legislator's baby, who had been crying. Nadler is a no-nonsense man and someone who will advocate well for troop withdrawal and who can stand up to Republican smears.
Nadler's bill would limit Congressional funding of the war ONLY to protecting the troops while withdrawing and for diplomacy and specifically rules out paying for any additional troops. Withdrawal must start within 30 days of enactment of the bill and end by Dec. 31, 2007. Here is what Nadler has to say on his website:
“It has been wrongly asserted that Congress cannot force the President to de-escalate or withdraw from Iraq because it cannot use its only real power – cutting off funds - lest it be accused of ‘abandoning the troops,’†says Rep. Nadler. “But if Congress appropriates funds, but limits those funds to protecting the troops and redeploying them from Iraq, that would be the best way of supporting the troops. In fact, keeping (or adding) American soldiers in the middle of a civil war with no end in sight is the ultimate act of abandonment. We must save American lives by bringing them home as soon as possible.â€
The Protect the Troops and Bring Them Home Act would limit the use of funds to:
1. Protecting our troops while they are in Iraq
2. Bringing the troops home in a safe and orderly manner on a timetable beginning one month after enactment of the Act and ending by December 31, 2007
3. Providing assistance to Iraqi security forces
4. Providing economic and reconstruction assistance
5. Arranging for diplomatic consultations.“If we want to end America’s military involvement in Iraq’s civil war, the only way we can overcome the President’s stubbornness in keeping us involved in this misguided effort is to limit the use of the funds to protecting our troops while carrying out a withdrawal,†says Rep. Nadler.
Please write your Congress Critter to express support for HR 455. Also write the media expressing your support of Nadler and this bill. This could be our best shot at stopping the Bush/McCain escalation plan, or at least getting it debated publically.
Can I just once again say that I am happy as can be with the Democratic Majority in the House so far!
Iraq quagmire | Peace | Democratic | House | Jerrold Nadler
Clever - makes it sound like
Clever - makes it sound like America's troops are on one side, opposing America's president (their commander in chief) and so the American people need to choose between them!
Where does that construct put Democrat politicians, though?
I hope
it puts them on the side of ending the war asap.
Nance
Yeah, I Think That's the Plan
generally. Don't really see another side to that. 
I'm not sure
that IS the plan -- even for some Dems.
But if they don't have the troops to hide behind, things might move in the right direction. Out.
Nance
Out Might Not Be Back Though
I'm getting the extremely uncomfortable feeling that we may have troops somewhere in the Middle East for the rest of my natural life, and maybe my kids' too . . .
Already have...
We have had troops in the area since the first Iraq war. We had troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (protecting democracy I suppose???) continuously between those two wars.
We will win
in Iraq. As long as the Defeatocrats don't wuss out.
Oh Really?
And what does that mean? No, seriously, Mr. Talking Point Repeater, what does "win" mean? We have no exit strategy, so I don't even know what Bush envisions a "win" being. Not one single one of his reasons for invading have borne fruit, so why are we there in the first place? He had no WMD and we had no evidence that he did in the final analysis. So we had no reason to invade because of any threat from Iraq. He had no ties to al-Qaeda and, in fact, our invasion is what BROUGHT al-Qaeda in there in the first place. So in terms of fighting terrorism the invasion was a disaster from the start and the best we EVER could do is establish the status quo that existed before we entered: a near lack of al-Qaeda presence. Deposing Hussein was a late excuse for invading and, of course, we did that. So...I gues if you limited your claim of "winning" to that one small goal, then we already won and should get out. If we wanted to establish democracy then we sure had better define what we mean. So far they have had an election and no one, even we, seem satisfied with it. The fact that democracy in Iraq is very likely to elect a fundamenalist Shi'a regime may temper our enthusiasm for democracy if we are not careful. Are you prepared for democracy to bring in an ally to Iran? Because that is a likely end point of this "democracy" excuse.
So why are we there in the first place, Mr. Blind Faith in Republican Memes? What is our exit strategy? Since Bush lied repeatedly about the former and has never defined the latter, I don't see how you would recocgnize a "win" if it bit you in the ass. So do you want to define these for me? Or are you as clueless as Bush regarding just why we are in Iraq in the first place?
As for Wussing out, I would love to see you accuse Webb or Murtha to their face that they are wussing out. I bet you wouldn't even have the guts to face them, let alone accuse them.































Fits with
my favorite sentiment from yesterday's blog reading --
You can either support the troops or support Bush.
Nance