babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 12:36 PM
Original message |
Senator Leahy: Why I'm voting "NO" on the Iraq Supplemental... |
|
Edited on Thu May-24-07 12:40 PM by babylonsister
Edit to add: this is from an e-mail, so no link though I'm sure it will be verified shortly.
Later today, the Senate is expected to vote on the 2007 Emergency Supplemental -- the Iraq War funding bill -- and I wanted to take a moment to explain to you why I will be voting against this flawed bill.
There is much that I support in this bill -- including assistance for Afghanistan and funding we added to help the National Guard address equipment shortages -- but it contains a serious flaw that I simply cannot vote for: It does not begin the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
The original supplemental bill that passed the Senate and was sent to President Bush's desk last month paralleled the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, recommendations that would have fundamentally changed the course of our military mission in Iraq.
Unfortunately, the President vetoed the original supplemental bill and has refused any meaningful compromise that would give us a clear path toward ending of our military involvement in Iraq.
This brings us to the current version of the supplemental bill. In short, the Iraq War funding provisions in this bill represent little more than a continuation of the failed status quo -- a continuation that I find unacceptable. The current bill will not begin to redeploy our troops from Iraq, it does not put adequate pressure on the Iraqis to stand up both politically and militarily, and it does not put a stop to President Bush's escalation plan.
While the legislation sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government to follow toward reconciling the country's various political factions, these benchmarks can be waived by the President at his discretion. These benchmarks are a move in the right direction but they are far from adequate.
As long as the Iraqi government believes American troops will always be there, they'll have little reason to make the tough choices that need to be made. And this supplemental bill does little to change this dynamic. Our engagement in Iraq has been a foreign policy failure of epic proportions. Not only have thousands of Americans lost their lives, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have as well. Our standing in the world has been diminished, and our weakened influence in the region has compromised our ability to fight terrorism throughout the world.
Clearly, it is time to bring our troops home, and I am disappointed that President Bush vetoed the first bill that would have done just that. Since this new supplemental does not begin the withdrawal of our troops -- while providing tens of billions more dollars in taxpayer money for the President's failed policy -- I cannot in good conscience vote for it.
Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy U.S. Senator
|
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 12:38 PM
Original message |
Leahy, Dodd . . . the list of Democrats I admire today. |
|
A short list, how long will it grow?
|
NightWatcher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 12:38 PM
Response to Original message |
1. holy crap is that a spine that he has showing? |
|
I better see a lot of "no" votes later today.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. That would MAKE MY DAY! But I'm not holding my breath. nt |
whistle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 12:39 PM
Response to Original message |
2. So, how will we know how he votes if the vote is secret? |
CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. the Senate vote is NOT in secret |
whistle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Oh, what is the secret vote then? I thought the senate was the final say |
|
....before it goes to be signed by shrub nuts
|
CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
is a term made up by David Sirota, in his theory that the Dems are passing the supplemental in the House in a rule (which is normally used to set the debate rules on an underlying bill). the Senate does not pass such rules before each bill.
|
KoKo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 12:42 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Please Fillibuster it then Senator Leahy! Do IT!!!!!! n/t |
whistle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
11. Absolutely fillibuster!!!! |
SharonRB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message |
4. You're always on top of it, Sister |
|
I was just coming to post this. Thanks!
|
snappyturtle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message |
5. K&R Look around a bit in DU I don't have a thread marked. |
|
Supposedly if we watch the rule vote on the bill we'll be able to tell....right?,,,,,someone?
|
Pastiche423
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-24-07 01:55 PM
Response to Original message |
8. One of the 1st emails I read today |
|
was this one from Senator Leahy. I will be watching closely to see how the rest of the Dem senators vote.
I need some hope.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:16 PM
Response to Original message |