[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Mike Thompson Moves Us Forward With Iraq Withdrawal Plan

by: wu ming

Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:36:50 AM PST


(Wonderful stuff by Thompson. - promoted by juls)

Congressman Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), whose first congresssional district represents part of Yolo County, has just cosponsored the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 with Senator (and presidential hopeful) Barack Obama (D-IL) and Philadelpia Congressman and Iraq War vet Patrick Murphy (D-PA) to set a timetable for ending our occupation of Iraq. As a Vietnam Vet and tireless champion of veterans' issues, Thompson knows firsthand the human cost of staying in a pointless war, and was one of the nearly 2/3 of House Democrats who had the sense to vote against going into Iraq in the first place. The details of the bill are as follows:

The binding legislation ends President Bush's escalation by capping the number of troops at January 10, 2007 levels, puts forward specific benchmarks for success in Iraq and establishes a timeline to redeploy our troops. Redeployment, according to the bill, would begin no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of all combat brigades redeployed by March 31, 2008 - a date consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Troops would be sent either home to their families in the U.S., to Afghanistan where more troops are needed to fight the war on terror or would remain in the region to train Iraqis, protect against more violence and perform counterterrorist activities. The Iraq War De-Escalation Act will refocus the efforts of American armed forces on Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and urges the president to send, within 60 days, a Special Envoy to Iraq to begin the important work of diplomacy with key nations in the region.

In addition, if the Iraqi government meets certain political, diplomatic and reconstruction benchmarks outlined by the Administration, the plan allows for the temporary suspension (for no more than 90 days) of troops redeployments, however only with congressional approval.

wu ming :: Mike Thompson Moves Us Forward With Iraq Withdrawal Plan
Senator Russ Feingold has a similar bill out there, similarly titled The Iraq Redeployment Bill of 2007, that would push the withdrawal timetable to 6 rather than 14 months. Feingold has been on fire recently, and had some choice words for his fellow senators in this recent diary at daily kos, this audio interview with Dave Sirota, and last night's appearance on Countdown. Hopefully between the Thompson-Obama-Murphy bill and Feingold's bill, they can put something together.

If you're in his district, you can email here to let Mike Thompson know that he's got support on the ground for this bill, if you're so inclined.

---

originally posted at surf putah

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
go Thompson!, he's my rep as well, I'm pleased to say (4.00 / 1)
I'm also glad to see that Jan. 10 date because -- unbeknownst to many who are still talking about how Bush WANTS to send 21,500 "additional" troops to Iraq, and whether "Dems can stop the surge" -- according to the AP's military writer, the only new bodies in the surge plan are the 3,200 soldiers of the 2nd Division, 82nd Airborne, and according to the Army Times, those guys arrived in Baghdad nearly 3 weeks ago -- but BEFORE Jan. 10.

according to the AP, the rest of the "surge" is made up of keeping some brigades in Iraq longer and sending other brigades already set to be in Iraq this year earlier than scheduled.

So, kudos to Obama, Thompson and Murphy, but everybody should also know that Dem Presidential candidate Tom Vilsack, 2-term governor of Iowa, and just recently chair of the DLC, has just raised the bar by telling the DNC meeting:

"Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral duty to cut off funding for the status quo," said Vilsack. "Not a cap - an end. Not eventually - immediately."

http://www.dailykos....

This is a stronger position, albeit rhetorical, since Vilsack isn't a  member of Congress. But calling for Congress to defund the occupation entirely also avoids Constitutional issues that Congress can't "direct" (or micromanage) the commander in chief with details about how he should conduct his wars.

And it's a big deal to have this "heartland" centrist Democrat plunge in without fear of the "Democrats want to leave the soldiers on the battlefield with no support" framing.


i was glad to see vilsack's change of heart (0.00 / 0)
my guess is that he realized that the DLC hawks would support hillary anyway, and decided to check out the 70% of the populace that is sick of this war.

hopefully they'll all get in a bidding war, and we'll get rid of the bases as well.


[ Parent ]
another thing Thompson can be credited for -- (8.00 / 1)
his bill H.R. 348, introduced in Feb 2006, "calling for redeployment from Iraq" and in addition that 1. the U.S. should not maintain a permanent military presence or military bases in Iraq and 2. the U.S. should not attempt to control the flow of Iraqi oil.

Interestingly, check out this 9/06 letter to the Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations, signed by 80+ House Democrats (including Jane Harman, btw), "to urge you include in the final version, provisions prohibiting the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq."

http://www.house.gov...

The House-passed Department of Defense Appropriations bill contains a provision that would ensure that no funds in the bill would be used to enter into a base agreement with the government of Iraq.  The Senate-passed version of the bill contains a similar provision in Section 8109, which prohibits funds to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.  With both chambers including similar provisions in their respective defense appropriations bills, and the House demonstrating its overwhelming support by a vote of 376-50 in favor of retaining the language in its version, we request that some form of this language be included in the conference report.  Furthermore, we appreciate your statements in support of the House provision during debate on June 20, 2006.

So if this letter is correct, it looks like there's a lot of member support for a prohibition on permanent bases in Iraq -- or again, at least a lot of member support for the RHETORICAL condemnation of the idea of such bases. Certainly members know that their constitutents, including GOP voters, are against a permanent occupation of Iraq. A vote to actually dismantle them, or give them up to Iraq might be different.


[ Parent ]
another good find (0.00 / 0)
i had remembered hearing about that bill of thompson's, but couldn't remember the number. thanks.

[ Parent ]
true about Vilsack... (0.00 / 0)
but it's an awful lot easier to call for these things to be done when you're not in a position to do them yourself. That's why it's so great to see Obama introduce this bill in the Senate. He gets that having been against the war rhetorically at the time is great and everything but it's not enough...if you're in a position to do something about it, you must. And he is.

Did you guys notice how since the post about this bill on dailyKos, Obama's been surging on the straw poll Markos posted earlier in the day? He's quickly closing in on Edwards, who had a pretty comfortable lead at first.


[ Parent ]
agreed -- as I wrote, Vilsack's position is a (0.00 / 0)
rhetorical one, since he isn't a member of Congress.

But he is running for President, and that's exactly why I think it's important for everyone -- including those straw poll answerers you mention -- who is eagerly seeking to ally themselves with whichever "serious" Presidential candidate takes the strongest anti-occupation stance knows about Vilsack's position. Dennis Kucinich? Not serious, sez the netroots (well, sez just about everybody). Tom Vilsack? well, maybe he just got a lot more "serious."

plus the Constitutional issue -- I am no expert, but the argument that cutting off funds 100% doesn't run up against Constitutional prohibitions against Congress micromanaging military actions rings true to me.

of course if the Obama, Thompson, Murphy bill never passes -- which it wouldn't today, which doesn't decrease its value in my eyes, certainly Thompson's name should help convince at least a few his fellow Blue Dog Democrats to stand up more strongly against Bush's occupation -- its Constitutional failings will never be tested.


[ Parent ]
mike's a weird sort of blue dog (0.00 / 0)
generally quite dependablly liberal (his odious bankruptcy bill and CAFTA votes aside), and his military support is actually of soldiers, not just defense contractors. were the rest of the blue dogs more similar to thompson, we'd be a lot better off.

as for the power of congress to cut off funding, that's been established practice since the british parliment way back when, and has been used many times by various congresses without incident. the constitution intended for congress to be the most powerful branch, not the executive; the cold war has twisted it in practice, but tconstitutional intent is pretty clear.


[ Parent ]
It's a nice proposal (0.00 / 0)
But I haven't seen anybody show much interest in actually getting something DONE. Everyone's got a proposal, but nobody's building a coalition or figuring out how to get something passed.  Part of this is the general pomposity of DC, part of it is that anyone facing a tough election in aught-8, be it presidential, senatorial or representative, wants their name on top, not in the "voted for" section.

I'm not knocking Thompson in this, I think he's one of the few who isn't just playing games on the issue. However, I'd like to see somebody actually set about changing things instead of just talking about how things would change for the better if everyone would just do as they're told.


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox