(This event is TOMORROW, and I hope to see many of you there! : ) - promoted by atdleft)
What do you have to say to YOUR Democratic Party about ending the Iraq War?
The Laguna Woods Democratic Club wants to give Orange County Democrats a chance to tell their representatives to the state party how they feel about ending the Iraq War. On March 31, the club will be hosting Defining the New Direction: Orange County Democrats Voice Their Views on the War in Iraq. This will give Democrats from throughout Orange County a chance to talk to the delegates who will be representing them at the CDP Convention next month about how, when, and why they want to see the Iraq War end. As the delegates prepare to vote on resolutions regarding the war, this is a chance for local Democrats to tell the delegates what they think.
Follow me after the flip for all the details on this important forum...
UPDATE:by Brian...As long as there is some space here, let's talk about tonight's activities. There are going to be lots of Iraq War vigils all over the country. Four in California are listed in the event section, but there will be a lot more. Moveon.org has an archive (by Zip) here.Check it out if you are so inclined...
For more pics from Saturday's event, as well as a little verbal explanation, follow me after the flip...
"It's very straightforward," the senator told me. "The Iraq resolution is a well intended one, but yet I personally believe that the real issue in Iraq is, first of all, as a country, as a people, the first question is: should we be in Iraq or not? Second question: if we decide we should be out, then the question is, what's our pullout policy? What's our withdrawal strategy? How do we get out of here? [...]
"In the meantime, we have to continue to support our troops. Should we send in more M1 Abram tanks? Should we send more Kevlar vests? Absolutely. We got to support our troops. We have to make sure that they're well protected. Those are central, core issues."
Thanks to The Liberal OC for keeping up on the latest developments here.
Eve before the House passed their resolution on the escalation in Iraq, the California Senate had already done so. It passed overwhelmingly, with only Republicans opposing. Vote info here
California's Senate became the first state legislative body in the nation to oppose President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, passing a resolution Monday urging Congress and Bush not to escalate U.S. involvement in the war.
The nonbinding resolution, which will be sent to Congress if it clears the Assembly, was approved by the 40-member Senate on a largely party-line vote of 22-14. Voting "no" were 13 Republicans and one Southern California Democrat, Lou Correa of Orange County. (SF Chron 2/14)
The question of the day, as the Liberal OC has been asking, why the hell did Lou Correa vote against this measure? Does he really support the surge? Does he think that his district supports the surge? The fact is that according to a new poll released today, only 35% of the country supports the escalation. So, even behind the Orange Curtain, support for the failed policies of George W Bush is not mandatory.
So, I strongly, indeed very strongly, request that you call Sen. Correa's office and ask him why he voted against the Senate Resolution. He's apparently in the district today, so try him at both offices. In Sacto, call him at (916) 651-4034. His OC office is (714) 558-4400.
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Just 2 Democrats voted against it (Jim Marshall - GA and Gene Taylor - MS) and 17 Republicans voted for the resolution, not one of whom was from California. TPM has the count. Sure it's non-binding, sure it's symbolic but the fact is, when given the chance to take a stand, every single California Republican in the House voted to support Bush's war escalation. Let's make sure voters don't forget it.
Starting this morning the House will begin to debate the moral issue of our times - our continued military occupation of Iraq. My colleagues and I will have the opportunity to vote on President Bush's escalation - a failed policy from the start, which will only deepen our engagement in the Iraq, and increase the cost to our country in lives, limb and treasury. The American public has already overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to the President's plan, and now it is our turn, and our responsibility to have our voices heard.
I will support this week's effort, and will cast my vote against the President's proposed escalation, but you all know that I will not stop there, and neither should my colleagues.
A couple of weeks ago, I wondered out loud whether we would get a chance to see where California legislators stand on the Bush's Iraq escalation. The following press release just hit my inbox:
Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who authored the first anti-Iraq war resolution in the country as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in October of 2002, announced that he would author a resolution in the State Assembly that would support efforts at the Congressional level to hold the President accountable for the failed Iraq war policy and oppose his plan to send more troops into the war.
The release says a, "strong majority of Assembly Democrats" will be co-authoring the resolution. It will be good to see where Republicans stand, are they with Bush and Schwarzenegger or with the vast majority of Californians?
George Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger look ridiculous supporting the "McCain Doctrine" escalation of the Iraq war. California Democrats have a huge opportunity to do the right thing (supported by the vast majority) and stand up against the Escalation of the war in Iraq that has already cost the lives of more than 300 Californians and is on track to cost Californians more than a half a trillion dollars.
Progressive States is working with MoveOn to introduce Resolutions against the surge escalation in a 50 State Strategy manner. As of yet, I'm told that it has yet to be introduced in California. Who is going to step up and lead on this no-brainer and where do your legislators stand? You can contact your legislators and when they step up, all they need to do is cut and paste the draft resolution that is after the flip:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would call a vote on the increase, trying to isolate Bush and put Republicans on the spot. Democratic leaders in the Senate also said they would schedule a debate next week on a symbolic measure expressing opposition.
Key Bay Area Democrats like Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Lantos and Ellen Tauscher, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, were part of a small delegation that met with the President yesterday.
Pelosi is on offense, putting the GOP on the spot. But Bush is too, going after the only two Democrats of the Bay Area delegation who screwed up when he fooled them the first time.
Tauscher needs to stop talking to Bush and start following Pelosi.
"It was not a confrontational meeting," said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo), who said she emphasized the importance of the Iraqi government making political progress. "I think he understands that, at some level, this is the last best chance."
Why the hell was it not confrontational? Tauscher needs to go.
(I can't say that I am surprised at this. - promoted by juls)
C'mon, Ellen, didn't your mother ever tell you this?
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Sen. Edward Kennedy posted a diary today on Daily Kos announcing that he is submitting legislation to prevent President Bush from escalating our troop commitment in Iraq without the explicit consent of the US Congress. Here is the complete text of Kennedy's bill:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Prohibition on use of funds for escalation of United States forces in Iraq.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States Government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the level for such forces which existed as of January 1, 2007, without a specific authorization of Congress by law for such an increase.
The front page of today's San Francisco Chronicle features a piece by Marc Sandalow on the battle brewing over Bush's expected plan to escalate in Iraq (known as the McCain Doctrine, "When you're hip deep in shit, dig faster, until you're in over your head.")
If the president, as expected, announces his intention to deploy as many as 20,000 additional U.S. troops in Iraq, he may encounter widespread political and public defiance.
It will quickly test the new Democratic majority's capacity to stand up to the commander in chief in a time of war, and the ability of the legislative branch to seize control of the White House's controversial foreign policy. [...]
"We can see a major clash coming between a Democratic Congress and the administration on this very, very fundamental issue,'' said Bruce Riedel, a former member of Bush's National Security Council and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Not only do most Democrats on the Hill oppose the surge or have serious doubts about it, but more and more Republicans have doubts about the wisdom of the surge.''
While "most Democrats" are smart enough to fight with Pelosi to oppose the escalation, there is one Democrat who already put together the necessary mechanics for such an escalation.
