Washblog

Patty Cant typically hasn't done?

lead the 70%+ who don't support dear leader and his fascists?

Go Russ Go

and maybe patty cant will

decide to earn their salaries?

I'd love to see any kind of freaking leadership from our two hillary-lite u.s. senators.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 08:52:27 PM PST

---

what the "path" is for this bill. Will it be referred to the Foreign Relations committee? If so, it may never leave that committee. Or perhaps Feingold is taking another route with this bill. I wonder what his strategy is.

by DWE on Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 10:03:45 PM PST

---

I'd especially like to know how our two senators stand on this bill.  And which Dems don't back it throughout the nation.

Because those Dems have to go and we have an obligation to ourselves to make sure that they DO get the boot next time around.

by Pen on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:45:49 PM PST

---

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/1/161053/9784

anyone remember that bullshit coordinated campaign event in April last year in Crown Hill of  the 36th Dist when CantShowUp couldn't show up, cuz ...

(shhh! there is / was this war thing going on)

and Russ was there,

and Russ was talking about how important the grassroots are / is

how Russes grassroots helped him win by 300,000 in 2004 which

helped kerry win the state by 10,000 ...

choke, gag, puke... gasp.

I guess no one thought to ask that maybe russ won by 300k cuz he stood for something and white bread dipshit ekked out 10,000 votes for being .... a white bread dipshit!

Where the hell are our U.S. SENATORS?

as the little hitler attempts to rachet up the war, AND

give a BIG FU$K YOU TO THE AMERICAN VOTERS AND AMERICAN PUBLIC?

I like all the stuff Patty Cant are working on,

BUT

Patty Cant needs to turn on King 5 and see GE/NBC/bushco setting us up to invade freaking iran.

Patty Cant are, to be polite, borderline incompetent against bushco.

rmm.

http://murray.senate.gov/news/continued.cfm
http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/index.cfm

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:52:10 PM PST

---

I have found the press reports on Sen. Feingold's bill to be a little confusing. He's said to have introduced the Redeployment Act on January 31, but what seems to have really happened was that he introduced the bill Jan. 4th as S.121, with Senators Boxer, Leahy, and Sanders as co-sponsors.

What happened on January 31st was that Sen. Feingold made introductory remarks on the measure. So, in other words, the bill people are talking about as new has been around for almost a month. Anyway, here are his remarks:

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have listened intently over the past few weeks as the President, members of his Cabinet, and Members of this Chamber have discussed Iraq, the war on terror, and ways to strengthen our national security.

   For years, now, I have opposed this administration's policies in Iraq as a diversion from the fight against terrorism. But I have never been so sure of the fact that this administration misunderstands the nature of the threats that face our country. I am also surer than ever--and it gives me no pleasure to say this--that this President is incapable of developing and executing a national security strategy that will make our country safer.

   Unfortunately, Mr. President, because of our disproportionate focus on Iraq, we are not using enough of our military and intelligence capabilities for defeating al-Qaida and other terrorist networks around the world, nor are we focusing sufficient attention on challenges we face with countries such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, or even China.

   While we have been distracted in Iraq, terrorist networks have developed new capabilities and found new sources of support throughout the world. We have seen terrorist attacks in India, Morocco, Turkey, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Spain, Great Britain, and elsewhere. The administration has failed to adequately address the terrorist safe haven that has existed for years in Somalia or the recent instability that has threatened to destabilize the region. And resurgent Taliban forces are contributing to growing levels of instability in Afghanistan.

   Meanwhile, the U.S. presence in Iraq is being used as a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations from around the world. We heard the testimony of Dr. Paul Pillar, former lead CIA analyst for the Middle-East, a few weeks ago in front of the Foreign Relations Committee. He said, and I quote:

   The effects of the war in Iraq on international terrorism were aptly summarized in the National Intelligence Estimate on international terrorism that was partially declassified last fall. In the words of the estimators, the war in Iraq has become a ``cause celebre'' for jihadists, is ``shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives,'' is one of the major factors fueling the spread of the global jihadist movement, and is being exploited by Al-Qa'ida ``to attract new recruits and donors.'' I concur with those judgments, as I believe would almost any other serious student of international terrorism. [January 10th, 2007]

   Retired senior military officers have also weighed in against the President's handling of this war. Retired commander of Central Command, General Hoar, testified in front of the Foreign Relations Committee last week. This is what the general said:

   Sadly, the new strategy, a deeply flawed solution to our current situation, reflects the continuing and chronic inability of the administration to get it right. The courageous men and women of our Armed Forces have been superb. They have met all the challenges of this difficult war. Unfortunately, they have not been well served by the civilian leadership. [January 18th, 2007]

   If we escalate our involvement in Iraq or continue the President's course, that means keeping large numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq indefinitely. It means continuing to ask our brave servicemembers to somehow provide a military solution to a political problem, one that will require the will of the Iraqi people to resolve.

   Escalating our involvement in Iraq also means that our military's readiness levels will continue to deteriorate.

It means that a disproportionate level of our military resources will continue to be focused on Iraq while terrorist networks strengthen their efforts worldwide. The fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, too, will continue to suffer, as it has since we invaded Iraq. If we escalate our involvement in Iraq, we won't be able to finish the job in Afghanistan.
   Finally, the safety of our country would be uncertain, at best. Terrorist organizations and insurgencies around the world will continue to use our presence in Iraq as a rallying cry and recruiting slogan. Terrorist networks will continue to increase their sophistication and reach as our military capabilities are strained in Iraq.

   These are only some of the costs of this ongoing war in Iraq. I have not addressed the most fundamental cost of this war the loss of the lives of our Nation's finest men and women, and the grief and suffering that accompanies their sacrifice by their families. We have lost 3,075 men and women in uniform, and that number continues to rise.

   These losses, and the damaging consequences to our national security, are not justified, in my mind, because the war in Iraq was, and remains, a war of choice. Some in this body, even those who have questioned the initial rationale for the war, suggest that we have no choice but to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Some here in this Chamber suggest that there is no choice than to continue to give the President deference, even when the result is damaging to our national security. Some argue it isn't the role of Congress to even debate bringing an end to this war.

   That argument is mistaken. Congress has a choice, and a responsibility, to determine whether we continue to allow this President to devote so much of our resources to Iraq or whether we listen to the American public and put an end to this war, begin repairing our military, and devote our resources to waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its allies. We cannot do both. The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power ``[to] declare War,'' ``[t]o raise and support Armies,'' ``[t]o provide and maintain a Navy,'' and ``[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.'' In addition, under article I, ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the administration talk, it is as if these provisions were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the Founders of our Republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define, and ultimately, to end a war.

   Our Founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the President got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, ``Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.''

   The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq for nearly 4 years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.

   If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the Founding Fathers defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our Nation.

   There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election and 2 months of study and supposed consultation--during which experts and Members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy--the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: ``Frankly, that's not their responsibility.''

   Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the nonbinding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: ``It's not going to stop us.''

   In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the President. It is Congress's responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying ``your policy is mistaken.'' And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it is the President's job to fix the mess he made. It is our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.

   I have just introduced legislation, cosponsored by Senator Boxer, which will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq 6 months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way.

   This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counterterrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way--they will continue receiving their equipment, training, and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq and will provide a hard deadline for bringing them home. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.

   There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict. Just yesterday, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.''

   Without exception, every witness--those called by the majority and the minority--did not challenge the constitutionality of Congress's authority to use the power of the purse to end a war. A number of the witnesses went further and said that Congress has not only the authority but the obligation to take specific actions that are in the interest of the nation.

   I would like to read one quote by Mr. Lou Fisher of the Library of Congress. He said, and I quote:

   In debating whether to adopt statutory restrictions on the Iraq War, Members of Congress want to be assured that legislative limitations do not jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. forces. Understandably, every Member wants to respect and honor the performance of dedicated American soldiers. However, the overarching issue for lawmakers is always this: Is a military operation in the nation's interest? If not, placing more U.S. soldiers in harm's way is not a proper response. Members of the House and the Senate cannot avoid the question or defer to the President. Lawmakers always decide the scope of military operations, either by accepting the commitment as it is or by altering its direction and purpose. Decision legitimately and constitutionally resides in Congress.

   There are significant historical precedents for this type of legislation that I have introduced today.

   In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide United States advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.

   In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in South East Asia. The provision read, and I quote:

   None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose.

   More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed legislation including a provision that prohibited funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President made certain assurances.

   Many Members of this body are well aware of this history. Unfortunately, many Members of the Congress are still concerned that any effort to limit the President's damaging policies in Iraq would have adverse consequences.
   Let me dispel a few myths that have been generated as a result of the discussion about the use of the power of the purse.

   Some have suggested that if Congress uses the power of the purse, our brave troops in the field will somehow suffer or be hung out to dry. This is completely false. Congress has the power to end funding for the President's failed Iraq policy and force him to bring our troops home. Nothing--nothing--will prevent the troops from receiving the body armor, ammunition, and other resources they need to keep them safe before, during, and after their redeployment. By forcing the President to safely bring our forces out of Iraq, we will protect them, not harm them.

   Others have suggested that using the power of the purse is micromanaging the war. Not so. It makes no sense to argue that once Congress has authorized a war it cannot take steps to limit or end that war. Setting a clear policy is not micromanaging; it is exactly what the Constitution contemplates, as we have heard today. Congress has had to use its power many times before, often when the executive branch was ignoring the will of the American people. It has done so without micromanaging and without endangering our soldiers.

   Some have argued that cutting off funding would send the wrong message to the troops. Our new Defense Secretary even made this argument last week with respect to the nonbinding resolution now under consideration. These claims are offensive and self-serving.

   Congress has the responsibility in our constitutional system to stand up to the President when he is using our military in a way that is contrary to our national interest. If anything, Congress's failure to act when the American people have lost confidence in the President's policy would send a more dangerous and demoralizing message to our troops--that Congress is willing to allow the President to pursue damaging policies that are a threat to our national security and that place them at risk.

   Any effort to end funding for the war must ensure that our troops are not put in even more danger and that important counterterrorism missions are still carried out. Every Member of this body, without exception, wants to protect our troops, and our country. But we can do that while at the same time living up to our responsibility to stop the President's ill-advised, ill-conceived, and poorly executed policies, which are taking a devastating toll on our military and on our national security. It is up to Congress to do what is right for our troops and for our national security, which has been badly damaged by diverting so many resources into Iraq.

   As long as this President goes unchecked by Congress, our troops will remain needlessly at risk, and our national security will be compromised. Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it is not because it doesn't have the power; It is because it doesn't have the will.

And here is the bill itself:

A BILL
To provide for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES FORCES FROM IRAQ.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States to redeploy United States forces from Iraq by not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, while maintaining thereafter in Iraq the minimal level of United States forces sufficient to engage directly in targeted counterterrorism activities, train Iraq security forces, and protect United States infrastructure and personnel in Iraq.

(b) Report-

(1) REPORT ON STRATEGY FOR REDEPLOYMENT- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to Congress a report setting forth the strategy of the United States for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by not later than the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act (in this section referred to as the `redeployment date'), in accordance with the policy stated in subsection (a).

(2) ELEMENTS OF STRATEGY- The strategy set forth in the report under this subsection shall include the following:

(A) A flexible schedule for redeploying United States forces from Iraq by the redeployment date, in accordance with the policy stated in subsection (a).

(B) An estimate of the number, size, and character of United States military units needed in Iraq after the redeployment date, for purposes of counterterrorism activities, training Iraq security forces, or protecting United States infrastructure and personnel in Iraq.

(C) A strategy for managing the regional implications of the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq in accordance with the policy stated in subsection (a), including a description of proposed efforts to ensure a coordinated diplomatic, political, and development strategy to accompany such redeployment of United States forces.

(D) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of United States forces in Iraq during the redeployment under the policy stated in subsection (a), and a contingency plan for addressing dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a specified number of additional United States forces to remain in Iraq after the redeployment date.

(E) A strategy for repairing and strengthening United States forces to effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

by DWE on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:48:56 AM PST

---