Email from Chris Dodd - "We can stop a bad Iraq bill"

[MH1]

Dear MH,

The New York Times reported earlier today that Democrats are considering whether to offer a "compromise" amendment on Iraq to the upcoming Defense Department Authorization bill.

This "compromise," the Levin-Reed amendment, would reportedly establish a non-binding "goal" -- as opposed to a firm deadline -- for withdrawing our combat troops from Iraq.

The net result could be another blank check for President Bush.

Senator Dodd said it best earlier today, "I cannot and will not support any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq. Rather than picking up votes, by removing the deadline to get our troops out of Iraq you have lost this Democrat's vote."

We can stop this before it sees the light of day.

Please contact your Senators and ask them to publicly reject any Iraq legislation that does not include enforceable deadlines for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.

http://chrisdodd.com/stopthebill

There is an alternative that all Democrats should rally behind today.

The Dodd Amendment:

* Start withdrawal immediately
* 50,000 troops out of Iraq by January 31, 2008
* Complete re-deployment of combat troops by April 30, 2008
* No additional funding for combat operations after April 30, 2008
* Make funding for the war during the redeployment period contingent on progress of redeployment.

Please email your Senators and ask them to vote "YES" on the Dodd amendment and "NO" on any legislation without hard deadlines.

http://chrisdodd.com/stopthebill

Together, we can stop another blank check from being presented to President Bush.

Tim Tagaris
Chris Dodd for President

Disclaimer: I have not "chosen" among the current presidential field. I just thought folks would be interested in this.

Edited to fix formatting for clarity and readability.

[rodeodance]

1. HERE is YOUR chance folks----get busy NOW please. NO Whinning, just do it.

[rodeodance]

2. REC

[MH1]

4. Thanks, I wonder

If people aren't interested in getting our troops out of Iraq, don't like Dodd's amendment, or aren't interested because it's Dodd?

I'm a bit surprised this is getting so little attention.

[rodeodance]

3. enough of these compromises!------DONE

[acmavm]

5. I think these threads might generate more action then they

do responses.

Anyway, I hope.

[MH1]

7. You're probably right

but if no one sees it, it won't generate action either.

[acmavm]

8. That's also true.

[sandnsea]

13. Me too

Because I just caught this over in the Kerry forum and am pissed there isn't more activity in it.

[MH1]

14. I should have put "Clinton" "Obama" or "Edwards" in the title.

There's always tomorrow.

:P

[Solon]

6. Not a fan of Dodd's but I can get behind his amendment...

But only with a clarification, where is the redeployment?

[rateyes]

9. Kicked, Recommended, and

doing it!!!

:kick:

[beachmom]

10. I'm glad Dodd is speaking out on this. However, I wonder what

is happening behind the scenes. I agree that Levin's amendment looks to be lame, but we may need to wait and see what the language ends up being, or whether negotiations break down.

[MH1]

12. Agree, and I'm sure this statement's a bit of politickin', but just think, if

this got a rousing response, lots of people calling their senators saying YES - THIS IS WHAT WE WANT! - wouldn't it help drive the debate in the right direction?

At this point I don't give a rat's patootie if it's presidential campaign politickin' or which candidate it's coming from - anything that helps put pressure on Congress to do the right thing, to me is worth supporting. (I would have posted this if it came from Clinton. But I don't expect it could have.)

As for Levin-Reed, maybe this is a way to shape it in a better direction.

[jillan]

11. You beat me to it -

I was just going to post this :)

[MH1]

15. Saturday kick. n/t