House Dem. Talking Points on New Iraq Bill
By David Swanson
Here's the Iraq bill the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on, on Wednesday: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/bridgebullbill.pdf
Here are the actual talking points the Democratic misleadership thinks will coat this pig with lipstick:
"Iraq Redeployment Bill
1. "Requires the redeployment of US troops from Iraq to begin within 30 days of enactment, with a target for completion
of December 15, 2008;"
No, the counter-recruitment movement and the worst year of U.S. Army recruiting since the Vietnam War requires the
withdrawal, not redeployment, of a small number of troops. Targets are for archery camp, not for dictators. Asking Bush
and Cheney to agree to a "target" or a "goal" that you know they will never attempt to meet is not helpful or
appropriate. We can do that. You are the United States Congress. The first half of the U.S. Constitution is devoted to
making you the most powerful branch of our government. Have you read it?
2. "Requires a transition in the mission of US forces in Iraq from primarily combat to: force protection and diplomatic
protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counter-terrorism operations;"
Call it whatever you want. They're not occupying YOUR country. People in Iraq sometimes used to have good moments. Their
lives were constrained by a brutal dictator, but they had predictability, stability, and even good times. They now have
almost unmitigated misery. Over a million of them are dead. Over 4 million have been displaced. You have done this to
them by funding your occupation of their country. Your first act must be to stop funding genocide. Period. Stop funding
it. No more bills.
3. "Prohibits deployment of any troops not fully equipped and trained; waivable with a presidential national security
certification;"
Do you not understand that even when you require Bush and Cheney to do things, they laugh at you? How seriously do you
think they take waivable suggestions? The American people consider waivable requirements of Bush and Cheney to be
indications that you are either insane or believe we are remarkably stupid, and we know you'd never think we were
stupid.
4. "Extends to all US government agencies and personnel the limitations in the Army Field Manual on permissible
interrogation techniques;"
So do the Eighth Amendment and the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. So what? The question is what
you are going to do about it. Pretending that until this moment the CIA was permitted to torture is a way of granting
immunity, when you should be drafting indictments and articles of impeachment.
5. "Provides $50 billion to meet the needs of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but defers the consideration of the
remainder of the President’s nearly $200 billion request."
Name me one troop who believes he or she is going to get that $50 billion or any sliver of it. I dare you to pass this
bill with an amendment that makes it conditional on majority approval by the active duty troops in Iraq whose bodies you
hide behind. Give them a choice of coming home or "being funded," and your whole charade will collapse.
This is a bill first and foremost to do what you bury in your final talking point: throw another 50 billion dollars at
the occupation of Iraq. You've consciously avoided banning the use of this money for attacking Iran. You've required no
withdrawal, no closing of bases. You've not used the power of the purse. You've not so much as mentioned mercenaries or
contractors. You've not explained where this $50 billion will come from, mush less all the other resulting costs. Your
own study says we've already spent $1.5 trillion. And you want to spend more? Again, are you insane?
Bush just signed the biggest military pork bill in history. Withdrawing from Iraq is pocket change. You can pass a bill
to fund a withdrawal if you want to, but this isn't it. This is a bill to fund more occupation.
Ninety of you committed to not voting for bills like this one: http://afterdowningstreet.org/peacepledge If you do not stand by your word, your word will be known as worthless henceforth.
Speaker Pelosi, if you are willing to cut off the money should Bush not accept your latest bill (as if the Senate will),
then why not cut the money off now? There are lives in the balance and your top concern is being able to "blame" Bush
for saving them? You need to get out more. Talk to people. Listen to them.
Here's something they just told pollsters at American Research Group: 94% of Democrats say Cheney has abused his power,
69% say he's committed impeachable offenses, 63% say he should be removed from office. You only said impeachment was off
the table for Bush, not Cheney. And, even then, you said you could not predict where investigations might lead.
Stop funding genocide, Nancy, and allow the Judiciary Committee to do it's job, and your desk will be covered with
flowers and your coffers overflowing.
Any of your gang who votes to fund more war will have only impeachment as a path to redemption. If they fail there, they
will be utterly worthless, and you will be to blame.
****************