National Call-In Day, Wednesday, June 7 Call your Congressional Representative Call (888) 355-3588 (toll-free) or 202-224-3121 An open debate on Iraq is OVERDUE! We have a unique opportunity to demand that Congress stop passing the buck. So far, 122 members of the House of Representatives have signed a 'discharge petition' calling for immediate debate and consideration of ALL alternatives to the policy of open-ended occupation of Iraq (including an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops). All we need is 96 more members of Congress to sign the petition for debate to begin. We need your help. Call your U.S. Representative on Wednesday, June 7th. Ask your Representative to sign H.Res. 543 OR thank them if they have already signed and ask them to ask a colleague to sign H.Res. 543. H.RES.543 Title: Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 55) requiring the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.res.00543: Here are lists of those who have and have not signed: http://www.openiraqdebate.com/inner/roll-call.html Tell your Congressmember that you demand a debate with an "open rule," meaning that any proposals to bring the troops home can be introduced, debated and voted on. The surest route to that debate is for them to sign the discharge petition and ask their colleagues to do the same. Call 202-224-3121, give the operator your Representative's name or go to power search on Congress Merge to find the local district office. http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3287
I find it disheartening that we can have a thread that's 7 pages long about gays getting married and only one response about holding an open and honest debate about how to get out of Iraq. Oh well 6000 civilian deaths in Baghdad alone so far this year, with 1400 in May. But's lets argue about gays.
Blame the terrorists...We and especially They need to go for the throat with greater verocity against the terrorists.
White House abruptly cancels classified Iraq 'progress' briefing with senators John Byrne Published: Wednesday June 7, 2006 President Bush has cancelled a classified briefing on the situation in Iraq, according to a letter from four Democratic senators obtained by RAW STORY. US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad had been set to brief Senators today. Democratic aides tell RAW STORY that the meeting, set to address "all members," was cancelled abruptly yesterday. Requests for a briefing by another administration official went unanswered. Khalilzad, an Aghan-American and former attorney for Iraqi Sunnis, has been widely reported as the primary component of America's attempts to get the new Iraqi government off the ground. Sectarian violence continues to escalate in Iraq, while ministers for the nation's departments of interior and defense have yet to be named. The letter, as obtained by RAW STORY, follows June 7, 2006 The President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: Today the Senate was expecting to receive a classified briefing from Ambassador Khalilzad on recent developments in Iraq. Yesterday, however, we learned that Ambassador Khalilzad was not available to conduct this briefing and the Administration was unwilling to make other officials available to brief in his place. Given the recent escalation of violence, the increasing risk to U.S. forces, and the failure of the Iraqis to agree on two of the most important Cabinet positions, we are concerned that not a single national security official from your Administration was willing to appear before a bipartisan group of Senators to explain your strategy in Iraq. This decision is even more troubling when you consider that in the first five months of this year, officials from your cabinet have appeared only sporadically before the Senate to discuss Iraq. In this time, close to 300 troops have died, Iraqis have failed to stand up a unity government, and sectarian violence has increased considerably. Meanwhile, the Congress was asked to appropriate another $60 billion for the war, pushing the total expenditures for Iraq well over $300 billion. With thousands of American lives on the line and with a staggering investment in U.S. resources, the American people and the Congress deserve more complete and regular information about your plans in Iraq. Therefore, we call upon you, Mr. President, to publicly commit to providing members of Congress sustained and comprehensive briefings and consultations. These sessions should include regular and detailed briefings from military officials and civilian leaders from the Defense Department, the State Department, the National Security Council and the Intelligence Community. Regrettably, the Administration's most recent quarterly report to the Congress on Iraq ("Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,") was a disappointment. It failed to present a clear and objective picture of what is happening in Iraq. Its many shortcomings provide yet another reason for your Administration to produce senior officials on a regular basis who can provide members of Congress with facts and answer the growing number of questions about your strategy. We hope you will publicly and immediately commit to making senior Administration officials available. A continuing failure by your Administration to engage the Congress in a more meaningful and sustained way needlessly complicates our mutual efforts to overcome the many challenges in Iraq. Senator Harry Reid Senator Richard Durbin Senator Joseph Biden Senator Carl Levin http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Senators_write_Bush_after_classified_Iraq_0607.html
I did my part by calling my congresswoman's office, which promised to pass along my request to her. Not sure if it'll have any effect, though. I know my congresswoman is a staunch war supporter.
GOP Measure Forces House Debate on War Divisions Within Party Likely to Surface By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 15, 2006; A01 Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq, the House today will embark on its first extended debate on the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the war on terrorism. In the wake of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death and President Bush's surprise trip to Baghdad, Republican leaders are moving quickly to capitalize on good news and trying to force Democrats on the defensive. Bush continued his own campaign with a morning news conference and a White House meeting with congressional leaders from both parties, while House leaders strategized on today's 10-hour debate. A memo from House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) urged House Republican members Tuesday to make the debate "a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats." After Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was booed this week by liberal activists for her failure to resolutely oppose the war, Republicans hope to present a united front that highlights the fractures in the Democratic Party. "As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democratic Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world," Boehner wrote. But the day-long debate will also give voice to some GOP lawmakers' misgivings about Bush administration policy -- and years of congressional support for it -- in an election year in which Iraq will be a central issue. The news of recent days has buoyed Republican spirits, but the party is still saddled with a war that remains deeply unpopular and is imperiling its continued control of Congress. Some House Republicans have complained that their party has taken flight from its responsibility to debate and oversee administration policy. "I can't help but feel through eyes of a combat-wounded Marine in Vietnam, if someone was shot, you tried to save his life. . . . While you were in combat, you had a sense of urgency to end the slaughter, and around here we don't have that sense of urgency," said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.), a usually soft-spoken backbencher who has urged his leaders to challenge the White House on Iraq. "To me, the administration does not act like there's a war going on. The Congress certainly doesn't act like there's a war going on. If you're raising money to keep the majority, if you're thinking about gay marriage, if you're doing all this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy who's about ready to drive over a land mine?" The last time Iraq dominated the House's attention, the issue was far less politically fluid. In October 2002, many Democrats went along with Bush's resolution of force, fearing the political consequences of opposing a popular president and a bellicose national mood. Now, some Republicans -- especially those representing battleground districts in the Northeast and Midwest -- will be swimming against the tide of public opinion. Already, the resolution itself -- declaring that the United States will complete the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq and will prevail in the global war on terror -- has attracted strong criticism from lawmakers in both parties. Democrats and antiwar Republicans object to the linkage between the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism, while some Republicans have said it sets unrealistic goals. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), who supports the war, called the resolution "strategically nebulous and morally obtuse." But the strongest misgivings may be practical. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) called the entire exercise "a dumb idea" that will highlight precisely the issue that is threatening Republican political fortunes. "When the country is war-weary, when the violence is still playing out on TV, I don't know why we want to highlight all that," he said. But Gilchrest, who won the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for his Marine service in Vietnam in the 1960s, believes political considerations have already played too large a role in the debate. In November, after Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) announced his support for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, Republican leaders hastily pushed a resolution to the House floor calling for immediate pull-out. But the cursory two-hour debate was noteworthy less for serious policy discourse than for the suggestion by the House's newest member, Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), that Murtha, a decorated war veteran, was a coward. "It was ludicrous," Gilchrest said. "It had nothing to do with saving lives. It had nothing to do with the war. It was one-upsmanship against the Democrats." That sentiment spurred Gilchrest and four other Republicans to break with their leadership this spring and sign on to a Democratic petition pushing for debate. Boehner pledged to do so weeks ago. But GOP leaders are trying to make sure today's debate is on Republican terms. The resolution, "declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror [and] the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary," was introduced with unabashed partisan overtones. The rules of debate will not allow the resolution to be amended, nor will alternative resolutions be allowed on the floor for a vote. Some war opponents -- sensing a political trap -- vowed yesterday not to participate. Five House members -- three Democrats and two Republicans -- held a news conference with a yellow rope tied around their hands to denounce the terms of debate. "This is nothing more or less than really a charade," said Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), who made headlines in the run-up to the Iraq invasion by changing french fries to "freedom fries" in the House dining room but has since turned strongly against the war. But Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), whose support for the war has helped put him in his toughest reelection battle yet, said "it is important for everybody to clarify their position, to be clear, and to stop giving mixed messages." But Gilchrest acknowledged he has ambivalent feelings about the way forward to success in Iraq. Citing his own battlefield experiences, he said this uncertainty is all the more reason for a full debate. "How many members have in their life [experienced] putting the barrel of their gun on another man's chest and pulling the trigger?" he asked in an interview this week. "How many members have experienced the chaos of a 3 a.m. battle, pushing your bayonet through another man's body? How many members have wrapped themselves around a fellow soldier who just lost his legs in a land mine and you feel the last breath and he's dead, calling in airstrikes on a village and walking through, seeing dead babies and others who are still alive, being with someone who's been shot and you can't move, you can't do anything because you're under intense fire and he dies right next to you?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402180.html
GOP, Dem House members protest GOP blocking of Iraq debate by tying hands A group of Democratic and Republican House members held a press conference today at the Capitol with their hands 'literally tied' to protest the blocking by Republican leadership of any real debate about the war in Iraq, RAW STORY has found. Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Martin Meehan (D-MA) blasted the "so-called resolution for debate on Iraq" that the House is set to vote on as little more than an "affirmation" of President Bush's "failed" Iraq policy. "The result, unfortunately, despite our pleas to the Rules Committee, is to effectively have a resolution which is not a debate but rather a discussion which will, in effect, give affirmation to the existing Bush administration policy with respect to Iraq," said Rep. Abercrombie. "It will express sentiment that everybody can agree with -- support for troops and support for engaging terrorists on a worldwide basis -- but does not have anything substantive to say with regard to the conduct of the war or what the position of the United States should be now, with the establishment of the Iraqi government and presumably the end of training for Department of Defense and Department of Interior forces in Iraq," Abercrombie continued. "Our hands are tied literally on the floor of the people's house, the one place that the American people should be able to expect a full and honest and open debate about what we should do to honor the sacrifices that have been made," explained Abercrombie. Congressman Martin Meehan emphasized the bipartisan nature of the news conference. "Now, we have worked hard in a bipartisan way to try to get a debate that's fair, a debate that gives everyone an opportunity to present their point of view," said Rep. Meehan. "Most of us have been to Iraq once or twice, or more than that." "Most of us talk to generals and other military officials on a regular basis," continued Meehan. "Surely the American people deserve to hear that debate." Republican House member Ron Paul spoke about the "irony" of the situation. "It's to me rather ironic that at this very moment we have Americans dying to promote democracy at the very same time we believe we are being shortchanged on democracy in that we're not permitted to offer any amendments," said Rep. Paul. "We hope that will change." http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/GOP_Dem_House_members_protest_GOP_0614.html
If our government works like its supposed to, this will likely end with congress voting themselves a raise.
Funny you should mention it. -- House Lawmakers Accept $3,300 Pay Hike Tuesday, June 13, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Despite record low approval ratings, House lawmakers Tuesday embraced a $3,300 pay raise that will increase their salaries to $168,500. The 2 percent cost-of-living raise would be the seventh straight for members of the House and Senate. Lawmakers easily squelched a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, to get a direct vote to block the COLA, which is automatically awarded unless lawmakers vote to block it. http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle...nt/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301123_pf.html
Since when does the Pentagon take sides in debate on the direction of Foreign Policy in America? ---------------- Pentagon talking points on Iraq, war on terror An incredibly lengthy "prep book" for discussion of the Iraq war and US efforts to end terrorism has been issued to supporters in Congress, and acquired by RAW STORY. The 74 page document seems to be an election year guide for Republicans and Democratic supporters of the war, with many of the "points" seeming to be rebuttals to arguments made by opponents of the war. Other portions seek to categorize opponents of the war as "cut and run" advocates. Though certain images could not, as of the time of publication, be transferred, we are making available to readers the entire Pentagon playbook for debate, which follows: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Republican_talking_points_on_Iraq_war_0615.html
The liberals were humiliated in this debate. Flip on CSPAN and watch a replay. Hilarious how Forbes Kerry and Hillary voted for this war and are now trying to win votes by today's charade.
How does Kerry and Hillary have anything to do with today's "debate." It's taking place in the house, not the senate.
Pentagon recalls war 'prep book' after leak... A one-line email sent to recipients of the Pentagon's Prep book on the Iraq and terror wars attempted to retract the document. The message, acquired by RAW STORY, was just one-sentence long, and follows in its entirety: # From: Scott, Traci CIV OSD LA [mailto:REDACTED BY RAW STORY] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:41 PM To: [Redacted by RAW STORY] Subject: Recall: Prep Book The sender would like to recall the message, "Prep Book". http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_recalls_war_talking_points_document_0615.html
