Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:32:16 PM PST
|
MoveOn just sent out an email to its members asking them to lobby their Congressional representatives on the upcoming (maybe today, maybe tomorrow?) House vote on Iraq appropriations:
According to the Washington Post, Democrats have apparently worked out a "deal" to give President Bush billions of dollars more for Iraq -- no strings attached -- in exchange for increased domestic spending.
The WaPo article details how the leadership (Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid in this case -- Nancy Pelosi seems to be noncommittal at this point) has decided that Democrats must "compromise" with Bush on Iraq in order to gain an additional $11 billion for domestic spending on items such as emergency drought relief in the southeast and the subprime mortgage crisis.
Apparently lost on these master tacticians is the fact that Bush has adamantly stated he will veto any domestic spending appropriations over and above what he has requested. But Hoyer, in demonstrating Democrats' willingness to yield to Bush, has already given away the store. The same article quotes House Minority Whip Roy Blunt: (emphasis added)
Blunt said yesterday that Democrats will give in on war funding, with or without additional money for domestic programs. "There's no reason to make a bad bargain," he said. "The president holds all the cards."
Of course, the president doesn't hold all the cards. He simply holds all the backbone.
More on the flip... |
| babaloo :: Would Ellen Tauscher Lie To Us? |
Congress has the ability to refuse to fund Bush's Iraq debacle, and, in fact, the Progressive Caucus sent a letter back in July, which was signed by 70 members of Congress (in September, they updated the letter, which was subsequently signed by 90 Representatives) which stated that these members of Congress would not support any funding for Iraq unless those appropriations specifically were directed to redeploying our troops home.
Dear Mr. President:
Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.
More than 3,742 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.
But, getting back to reality, MoveOn's email today went on to talk about why Democrats are once again preparing to fold on Iraq and what we can do about it:
Why is this happening again? When Democrats get tough with the president on Iraq he usually accuses them of hurting the troops. This time, he has been threatening to lay off military personnel and blame the Democrats. Once again, Democrats got nervous and backed down.
Yes, Bush is a bully. But Democrats can stand up to him. They need to know that voters are counting on them to confront the president's scare tactics head on.
Here's how the New York Times explained their latest "compromise":
The decision to free some money for the war without a deadline or goal for withdrawal would represent a major concession by Democrats. They had earlier said they would not send Mr. Bush any more war money this year unless he accepted a change in Iraq policy. But Democratic leaders now say they have concluded that a logjam of 11 appropriations bills cannot be broken without acceding to at least some of the president's demand for more war money.
What we need to make clear to them is that you can't cut deals when it comes to war. There is no trade-off between getting our troops out of a religious civil war in Iraq and making progress on priorities here at home.
Democrats need to stand up and say that it's the president who is hurting our troops. He has them bogged down in an un-winnable civil war, with no end in sight. When he refuses to sign war funding bills that contain measures that would correct his reckless policy, he is the one who is keeping our troops and the Iraqis at risk.
What is most interesting to me about this email is that MoveOn is targeting Ellen Tauscher and asking her constitiuents to lobby her by phone today. Now, Ellen Tauscher is one of the original signatories to the Progressive Caucus's July letter and also signed the September letter. So I'm not quite sure why a lobbying effort targeting her would be necessary - unless (oh, my God, say it isn't so) she plans to renege on her promise to the American people.
Every Democrat in Congress needs to hear a groundswell of concern from their constituents. Can you call Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher right away and tell her to oppose any deal that does not include a firm timeline to end the war? Tell her that voters are counting on Congress to keep their word and stand up to the president-not capitulate, again.
Here's where to call:
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher
Phone: 202-225-1880 |
|
Comments  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Diaries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
