Sen. Leahy considering Amendment to not fund troop 'surge'

[TayTay]

OMG, we have some real news amid all the 08 speculation. How did that happen?

There is an article in the Dec 31st Lowell Sun that talks about the efforts by several New England Democrats in the US House and efforts by Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont to introduce amendments to cut off funding for troops in Iraq above a certain number. (The article specifically mentions not funding Iraq troop levels above 150,000. This is Sen. Leahy's proposal.)

Senator Leahy is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. These are the other members of that Committee:

CHAIR: Byrd, Inouye, Leahy, Harkin, Mikulski, Kohl, Murray, Dorgan, Feinstein, Durbin, Johnson, Landrieu, Reed, Lautenberg, Nelson (Ne)

This is who voted Yea on the Kerry/Feingold Amendment S. 4442 on 6/22/06 to withdraw troops from Iraq according to a timetable. This is probably a good place to start finding Dem Senators who would agree with Sen. Leahy on an amendment to not fund a troop 'surge' or to escalate the war.

Akaka (D-HI), Boxer (D-CA), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Menendez (D-NJ), Wyden (D-OR)

Rep. Jim McGovern had a bill in the 109th (Weasel) Congress that proposed an end to funding for the War, except for the monies necessary to withdraw all troops. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4232.IH: ) McGovern intends to re-introduce this bill in the 110th (Democratic) Congress. The original bill had 19 co-sponsors in the House and, of course, didn't go anywhere. It will be, needless to say, very interesting to see where it goes in the 110th Congress and who supports it.

The Iraq War is very unpopular in New England in particular. There is a great deal of support here for efforts to withdraw troops and reign Bush and his cronies in on what they are doing in the Middle East. This effort may end up splitting the Democratic Party on ideological and geographic lines this year and bears watching closely.

Here is the Lowell Sun article:

http://www.lowellsun.com/front/ci_4928919

Dems: Hold line on troops

Some reps hope to stem increase of troops in Iraq

By EVAN LEHMANN, Sun Washington Bureau
Article Last Updated: 12/31/2006 06:45:35 AM EST

WASHINGTON -- Fearing President Bush is poised to escalate the Iraq war, several New England Democrats said they will support spending restrictions to block a potential troop surge, or even leverage a withdrawal.

It is a challenging maneuver that could crosscut the promises of their incoming Democratic leaders to financially support the administration's war plan while simultaneously calling on the president to reduce the United States presence in Iraq.

Moreover, the attempts to design spending roadblocks are muddied by divisions within a Democratic Party leery two years before a presidential election of losing its new and narrow majority by appearing soft on terrorism and against the troops, lawmakers and analysts say.

Still, several New England lawmakers expressed frustration with reports that Bush might stream up to 30,000 troops into Iraq. The lawmakers said they would support attempts to employ congressional purse powers to block any move toward enlarging the U.S. footprint in a country descending toward civil war.

[cali]

1. Yet another reason

to love my Senator. I really believe we're gonna see some amazing stuff from Leahy in the coming months. He's incredibly angry and determined to undo as much of bushco's damage as he can. I've never heard or seen him like quite like this in all the years he's been my Senator.

[TayTay]

5. I think there will be an effort to begin to defund the war

but I think that effort will happen in pieces. Done correctly, this also takes the 'soft on national security' gambit out of the Republican's hands. (Though I do eventually see the whole funding for the war on the docket. I just don't see that until later on in the year. Some Reps and Sens are ready for that, most are not and pushing the issue too early might derail or kill the effort for this 1st session of the Congress.)

I love Sen. Leahy. I met him once when he was a Freshman Senator, way back when, and he is a wonderful man and a truly excellent Senator. I commend you for having the good sense to vote for this man and send him to Washington!

[The Wizard]

44. The soft on national security

dog won't hunt outside the Confederacy. Anyone still believing invading Iraq made us more secure is wearing a pointed hood and starched sheets.
Bush has Nixon-like numbers, and if the Democrats in Congress continue to buy the Republikkklan propaganda then woe to them. They were elected to end this fiasco now and investigate the most corrupt government in history. We want this nonsense to end, and we want a full refund from the profiteers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Great! I think my Senator Murray will back him.

She'll be hearing from me to do so. She's been pretty staunch in her opposition to the war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. and this is how the Vietnam war stopped too

expect the usual suspects to ask why Leahey hates the troops and America

[Mz Pip]

4. I wonder if there would be a way

to cut the funding for the contractors. I have serious doubts that a funding cut for the troops would pass. As long as there are soldiers over there I don't see many Dems voting to cut off funding that would be perceived as endangering them.

But the contractors, the businesses that are making billions off of government contracts, that might be something worth considering. As long as BushCo and his cronies are getting fat off this war from our tax dollars there is every motiviation to keep this fiasco going.

Starve the beast, not the troops.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[dailykoff]

6. Great news!

Leahy seems pretty serious about making things happen in 2007. Hope he gets a lot of support.

[acmavm]

7. THIS is the type of action we need from our representatives.

Quit throwing money at the bush** administration for their criminal activities.

edit: Shouldn't this come from any of the dems who are thinking of running for the presidency?

[TayTay]

8. It should be talked about, but...

Sen. Leahy is on the Appropriations Committee which controls the budget. This committee, and Armed Services, would have direct oversight on the spending.

It says in the Lowell Sun article that Sen. Leahy is talking to other Senate Democrats about his proposal to not fund a troop surge. It doesn't say what he will do going forward. The Amendment could be raised in Committee, where I am guessing that it might fail. (There are moderate/conservative Dems on that Committee who might not want to take the step of defunding an initiative the President wants.) Should the Amendment fail in Committee, it could still be taken to the floor of the Senate and introduced, which is where Democrats who are not on Appropriations can then weigh in on it.

[acmavm]

11. Seriously, why would you say that it should only be discussed

by someone on the Appropriations Committee? It should be discussed by every damn democrat in the House and the Senate. Not only the funding for Iraq, but the tax cuts, the illegal spying, every damn program that these crooks have initiated and that they're bleeding the American taxpayer for.

That's part of what's wrong in Washington. The lack of outrage from the PARTY and our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. These aren't matters to be discussed by only one or two people on a committee. These are subjects that should be drawing outrage from ALL of them.

[TayTay]

12. I didn't say that.

I said this is where it would be proposed as legislation.

It should be talked about everywhere, including DU.

As a piece of legislation, it would first see the light of day on an Appropriations Bill. Any Senator is free to talk about it, but the Senators on that Committee (or Sub-committee) would have 'first crack' at voting on it.

That's all I meant. The Amendment would go through the process. I very much doubt Senator Leahy would drop it if it failed in Committee. And I think ALL DEM Senators should discuss it.

[King Coal]

46. What's up with Pelosi?

Why is she against banning the funds for a surge?

[creeksneakers2]

9. Worried about looking soft on terror?

The DLC uses this phony argument to get its way. A CNN poll in December found that only 11% of Americans favor an increase in troop strength. 54% want the troops home by the end of 2007. How can opposing the increase hurt politically?

I'd actually be for an increase if real experts and not the quacks Bush surrounds himself determine that an increase would get us out sooner or change the outcome of the war.

I'm angry though that the DLC succeeds in preserving the military industrial complex with this, "Opposing it will make you look weak and you'll lose votes" argument that they use on Democrats.

[TayTay]

10. I agree with you on this.

There are a lot of Democrats who would just as soon not propose anything or would rather not challenge Bush on the war. I can't figure out why either. Sigh!

I am proud of Sen. Leahy for doing this and for trying to gather support in the Senate. I think this is what Dems should be doing, going out and being an opposition party and fighting against this endless war.

[eleny]

19. Heard an interesting observation on AAR yesterday

I can't recall who it was being interviewed. But he made the point that the more conservative Dems who were newly elected this election held progressive views. And that's why they got elected. Ford of TN was not elected and he's a Dem who spoke a conservative line.

This tells us that the public is ready for our views to go into action. And when Gerald Ford spoke posthumously against the invasion of Iraq, it gives Republicans permission to be against the war, too.

So now it's time for Leahy to strike while this iron is hot. :thumbsup:

[cali]

20. I'd like to think that Ford

would be listened to by repukes but I don't have much hope for it. Today's republicans seem to have little respect for the man.

[eleny]

21. I don't think GF will lead strong supporters away from W

But there are always those people wavering on the cusp. And GF's thoughts as revealed gives them the permission they need to make the leap. Those people can be peeled away layer by layer from their previously held views as the occupation spells greater disasters every month.

[cali]

23. I hope you're right! n/t

[eleny]

28. The polls shifting our way make me think this way

I figure the people changing their minds aren't all Dems who went sideways. Some of them have to be Republicans coming out of the ether.

Happy New Year!

[cali]

13. From an article in the Brattleboro Reformer:

<snip>
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, is having discussions with other senators about legislation that would restrict the president's use of the military.
He said the "only way" a withdrawal would occur is through the budget process.

"I don't know anyone who believes we'll see an end to (the Iraq war) the way we're doing it now," he said in an interview. "It's time to get out of there

<snip>

http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_4919970

[TayTay]

14. Same article, but Vermont got it first!

Which is fitting as it prominently quotes Sen. Leahy and his call to do something to hold this President accountable and to reign him in on his running of the war.

I agree with Sen. Leahy, Congress has to do something about this and the Bush Admin would be forced to listen if the Congress seriously tried to cut funding.

[eleny]

15. We can target them for our strong support

Thanks for posting. K&R!

[TayTay]

16. I've been looking for this news

I think this is 'the' battle of the 110th Congress. This, along with the battle over subpoena power and if the Bush Admin has to obey those subpoenas, is going to result in a Constitutional face-off between the Congress and the Presidency in 2007.

That is real news and will overshadow anything else. As I think it should.

[eleny]

22. It's a great feeling to support an effort by our senators

Thanks again.

[babylonsister]

17. K&R! This is a good start for the Dems and needs to be done.

We're not withholding funds for the soldiers, we're potentially saving lives.

[rox63]

18. Makes me proud to be a New Englander n/t

[BlooInBloo]

24. Escalation. Escalation. Escalation.

[cali]

25. Huh?

How does that relate to the OP, which was about the opposite of escalation?

[mzmolly]

27. He he.

I wondered the same?

[BlooInBloo]

29. "Surge" is a republican-PR-for- stupid-Americans word.

[NewJeffCT]

39. The poster means it is an ESCALATION, not a SURGE

Surge is the focus-group defined word from Frank Luntz and Karl Rove to make the escalation sound more palatable to the American people. Anybody who was an adult in the Vietnam era will remember that the word "escalation" had a very negative connotation back then, so they are doing anything they can to avoid it.

[cali]

40. Yeah, well they're not having much success with it

thank goodness. Senator Hagel calls it "Alice in Wonderland", and Senator Lugar is also speaking out strongly against it.

[NewJeffCT]

41. Is anybody besides Lieberman supporting it?

Hello? Bueller?

[cali]

42. LOL, I'm sure the usual suspects

in the repub party are supporting the "McCain Doctrine", but I haven't heard any democrats coming out and saying "hell yes, that's a great idea"- Harry Reid backed off his origninal tentative support. I wonder where people like Senator Warner of VA stand? In any case, I hope that Senators like Hagel and Luger will put their support where their mouths are, and back Senator Leahy?.

[NewJeffCT]

43. if Hagel & Lugar are against it

Then, it's not something that would get up front approval.

My guess is that Bush will put the troops there before asking for funding using what he claims is his authority as Commander-in-Chief. Then, after the additional 20-30,000 troops are already there, he will then go to Congress & ask for funding.

[Nutmegger]

30. Yup let's end the doublespeak. n/t

[mzmolly]

26. AWESOME!

This is not the same as cutting funds for those already involved. This is a way to stop an increase in the madness.

MARVELOUS NEWS! Now we must urge Dems to support this.

:toast:

[Nutmegger]

31. Dems need to unite instead of hiding behind "soft of terra" soundbites. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

32. Don't call it "cutting off funds for the troops." Call it "cutting off...

"...funds for the occupation." Nobody wants to defund the troops.

NGU.

[cali]

33. Kick n/t

[Clarkie1]

34. K & R. Good to see some senators doing their job. nt

[Little Star]

35. Be still my heart!!! n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

36. Boy, I sure would like to see them actually DO something

this bold.

[flyarm]

37. HOW ABOUT FINDING OUT WHERE * GOT THE MONEY TO BUILD BASES IN IRAQ

AND SQUASHING THE VATICAN CITY EMBASSY AND ALL BASES IN IRAQ..I WILL VOTE AND WORK FOR ANY CONGRESS PERSON WHO SAYS..WE ARE SHUTTING AND DEFUNDING THOSE BASES!!

[cali]

38. small steps will lead to bigger things.

Senator Leahy is dead on right about first stopping this disasterous troop "surge" through the power of the purse- then on to shutting down bases.

[No Exit]

45. Leahy is a hero!!

No wonder the freep-assholes and their ilk hate him so much. Sorry, freepsters--it seems your "God" has grown tired of you and is now smiling on US.:)

[Imagevision]

47. Bush's blank check days went out with last year!! --> accountability!!