Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Democrats rise to Bush's challenge

President Bush has asked those opposing his "Surge" plan for Iraq to come up with alternatives. Jonathan Tasini at The Huffington Post reports on a bill being introduced by 15 Democrats to End the War
At 2 p.m. Eastern today, Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee (co-chairs of Progressive caucus, which has roughly 64 members) and Maxine Waters (chair of Out of Iraq Caucus, roughly 74 members) are introducing comprehensive End the War legislation, answering Bush's challenge that Democrats provide alternative proposals. It's called The Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act.
While I haven't seen an exact copy of the proposed legislation, I can tell you the basic details of what it will say. It's important for everyone who believes in bringing this war to an end that we get out and blog on the bill--and force the MSM to give this alternative broad coverage.
I understand that initially the co-sponsors will be joined by thirteen others (including Barney Frank, John Conyers, Jim McGovern, Dennis Kucinich, Diane Watson, Maurice Hinchey, Jerry Nadler and Raul Grijalva). Here are the details:
1. The bill fully funds a 6-month withdrawal of US forces and military contractors (from the date of enactment of the bill) from Iraq.
2. It repeals the authorization for the use of force. This is key, in my humble opinion, because it takes away any remaining authority to wage war in Iraq and, hopefully, reestablishes the Congress' power to wage war.
3. It prohibits the building of any permanent military bases in Iraq, which has clearly been the Pentagon's plan.
4. It provides economic and political aid to the Iraqi people and their government. When ever I've written and spoken about this issue, I've been clear that, while the U.S. cannot play any military role in Iraq, we are morally obligated to help rebuild a country out government destroyed.
5. The bill fully funds the VA Health Care system for all military veterans.
6. As I understand it, the bill draws on language from other bills aimed at an exit from war to peace and puts it into a package they hope to rally lawmakers and grassroots behind.

read the entire article


QCMediaGhost said...

Talking about the insanity of 'Political Correctness', Democraps calling themselves ‘progressive’ is no different then looking for the clean end of a cow-pie.

Dave Barrett said...

I've been having a hard time understanding what you mean by 'Political Correctness' because you have been ascribing a lot of negative effects to it that I could not understand being caused by people not hurting other people's feelings -- my understanding of 'Political Correctness.' But with this example of your usage I think I am beginning to understand. When you say a group of Democratic Congresspeople calling themselves the "Progressive Caucus" is "Political Correctness" I now understand that you are not using the word as I understand it all -- calling people handicapped rather than crippled, for example. You are using the word to mean anything done by Democrats or liberals that you disagree with. Do I get that right? Is that what you mean by 'Political Correctness'?

QCMediaGhost said...

It’s not my intention to be argumentative, but PC to us means words / phrases used to coverup the real act or agenda.

Maybe ‘spin’ would be more applicable.

As far as crippled vs handicapped, I can’t imagine anyone appreciating either of those labels.

Dave Barrett said...

That's odd. Apparently conservatives are using the phrase "Political Correctness" differently than everyone else. Everyone else uses it to mean things like calling janitors "sanitation engineers" or saying "vertically challenged" rather than short.
There are already perfectly good words and phrases for using words and phrases to coverup the real agenda -- deceptive, "political spin", lying, etc.

Also you only seem to use the phrase "Political Correctness" when talking about Democrats or liberals. You never, for example, talk about President Bush being "Politically Correct" when he uses "surge" to talk about an increase of troops which will be of unknown duration but probably a very long time (while, of course, the word surge suggest something temporary). You never say President Bush is being "Politically Correct" when he goes on and on about bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq when in fact he obviously cares very little about the Iraqi people and his real reasons for invading Iraq had nothing to do with what was best for the Iraq. You never called Karl Rove "Politically Correct" when during the 2000 primary in South Carolina he spread rumours about John McCain having a mongrel bastard child (when in fact he has an adopted daughter from Bangledesh).

And of course you never call yourself "Politically Correct" when you call Democrats "Democraps".

nobody said...

Sounds like a plan to hand the Republicans the Presidents office in 2008, and possibly a recapturing of the Senate.

Dave Barrett said...

The polls show the public overwhelmingly opposed to escalating the war. You figure that 20 or 30% of those who are now saying they oppose escalating and extending this war are going to change their minds back to supporting the war by election day?