portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | imperialism & war

Rep. Murtha's resolution to get U.S. troops out of Iraq

Below is the House resolution and a list of 95 cosponsors. Oregon Reps. Blumenauer and Wu have signed on. Reps. Hooley, DeFazio and Walden have not. We need to be pressuring them to become cosponsors. We have reached a national tipping point on Iraq, the momentum is now ours, but we need to get everyone on the same page and keep it moving. If you live in Hooley, DeFazio or Walden's district, please take a minute to contact them about this. See  http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ for contact info.
The Library of Congress THOMAS
 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.73:

HJ 73 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 73

To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

Mr. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

JOINT RESOLUTION

To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.

Whereas Congress and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to `promote the emergence of a democratic government';

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified; and

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

--------------------------------

GovTrack
 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-73

Cosponsors:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Joe Baca [D-CA]
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D-WI]
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D-CA]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA]
Rep. Corrine Brown [D-FL]
Rep. George Butterfield [D-NC]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D-MA]
Rep. Julia Carson [D-IN]
Rep. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. James Clyburn [D-SC]
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
Rep. Elijah Cummings [D-MD]
Rep. Danny Davis [D-IL]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D-TX]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D-PA]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Lane Evans [D-IL]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Luis Gutierrez [D-IL]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D-IL]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. William Jefferson [D-LA]
Rep. Eddie Johnson [D-TX]
Rep. Stephanie Jones [D-OH]
Rep. Paul Kanjorski [D-PA]
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D-OH]
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. John Larson [D-CT]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. John Lewis [D-GA]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN]
Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. Cynthia McKinney [D-GA]
Rep. Michael McNulty [D-NY]
Rep. Martin Meehan [D-MA]
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D-NY]
Rep. Michael Michaud [D-ME]
Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald [D-CA]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Rep. Alan Mollohan [D-WV]
Rep. Gwen Moore [D-WI]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
Rep. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. James Oberstar [D-MN]
Rep. John Olver [D-MA]
Rep. Major Owens [D-NY]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]
Rep. Nick Rahall [D-WV]
Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA]
Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL]
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH]
Rep. Linda Sanchez [D-CA]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D-CA]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Robert Scott [D-VA]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS]
Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY]
Rep. Tom Udall [D-NM]
Rep. Nydia Velazquez [D-NY]
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D-IN]
Rep. Debbie Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. David Wu [D-OR]
Rep. Mark Udall [D-CO]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.

homepage: homepage: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/


Pelosi Sabotage 18.Dec.2005 13:13

rAT (can't help it)

Now Pelosi is trying to sabotage the growing anti-war sentiment from becoming part of the 2008 Democratic Party platform. She's engaged in a heated ideological war with the Howard Dean wing of the party. She also gets over $50,000 from AIPAC every year. She says all Democratic politicians should "decide for themselves" whether or not to support the war. At the same time she says she supports Murtha. Makes you wonder about the true motives of 'Superpatriot' Murtha and his 'six month' withdrawal plan. Hell, Rummy said we'd be out of Iraq in 6 weeks. Pelosi is skilled in posing as some sort of 60's Liberal when when the occasion calls, but now that the anti-Bush, anti-war sentiment is gaining critical mass, the true colors of the mighty Clinton wing reveal themselves in a frenzied attempt tp keep the war going into the 2008 Presidential contest. Then and only then will you hear Nancy and Hillary yelling "Out of Iraq Now!" as they try and Macarena their way back into the White House.

I mean 2006 18.Dec.2005 13:21

rAT

the first sentence above should have read "2006". sorry

Call, e-Mail: it can't hurt! 18.Dec.2005 16:44

g.d. dem

REMIND HOOLEY, thank her, for her vote in October 2002 AGAINST the war powers authorization! Hooley is more of a moderate than Blumenauer or, arguably, than Wu -- but she has never been a pro-Iraq-war Democrat!

It's probably true that Hooley has been dependent on big $$$ donations to win in her mid-state district. And Hooley can probably be characterized as a moderate, but what is "moderate" is changing. Hooley knows that she now has the advantage of a popular incumbent. Her constituents know who she is and where she stands -- and how to contact her and present their views. So contacting Hooley about the Murtha proposal is a very good idea.

It wouldn't hurt to contact Blumenauer and Wu, as well, and THANK THEM for their votes back in October, 2002, as well as for signing on to the Murtha initiative.

It wouldn't hurt to contact Senator Wyden, too, and THANK HIM for his vote against the war back in October, 2002.

This approach of re-inforcing popular opposition to the war is called "postive re-inforcement"!

Walden (Oregon's only Republican representative) is notorious for dodging every issue -- but it certainly wouldn't hurt to pressure him also. Of course, Walden voted FOR the infamous "October resolution" in 2002 -- and for just about everything that Bush has ever asked Congress to do. (Smith, of course, also voted for the war powers resolution.)

WHAT ABOUT DeFazio? DeFazio appears to be tied to a bi-partisan strategy since before the Iraq invasion. It isn't generally recognized, but way back in February, 2003, Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced legislation to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution (the infamous "October resolution", opposed by the entire Oregon Democratic congressional delegation).

The Paul-DeFazio bill text read in total:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Repeal of Public Law 107-243.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed."

There's no doubt that DeFazio is opposed to the Iraq war and occupation, but it's still a good idea to contact DeFazio, thank him for his opposition to the war and urge him to sign on to the Pelosi/Murtha proposal.

See "All 5 Oregon Dems opposed the war!" --

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/330582.shtml

btw: hillary/nancy axis of evil 18.Dec.2005 17:45

g.d. dem

When Nancy Pelosi was working night and day in October, 2002, to line up votes against the infamous "October resolution", Hillary Clinton was giving a major speech in favor of presidential power in general, and, in particular, FOR the war powers authorization. Hillary, like Bill, has always been a big supporter of the so-called "free trade" (WTO) agenda, while Nancy has long been a major critic of that agenda. Hillary started out (before she met Bill) as a Goldwater Republican. Nancy (born Nancy D'Alesandro in Baltimore, Maryland) also became involved in politics at an early age. Her father, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., was a Baltimore Democrat of the old school -- a U.S. Congressman from Maryland and also a Mayor of Baltimore.

Pelosi's "heated ideological war with the Howard Dean wing of the party" is a fantasy created by right-wing propagandists, without any factual basis. The Murtha proposal is even called the Dean/Pelosi/Murtha proposal!

Far from being part of the "mighty Clinton wing" of the party, Pelosi has been seen as stealing the fire from Hillary since she (Pelosi) became the leader of the House Democrats on the strength of her opposition to the Iraq war in 2002. Regardless of a photo showing them side-by-side, there is no "Nancy and Hillary" thing except in the mind of rAT, who is living in a fantasy world produced by the right-wing propaganda machine.

WHAT THE 'HATE PELOSI' CAMPAIGN IS REALLY ALL ABOUT --

At present, if Bush and Cheney would be impeached (inshah Allah!), the president would be Dennis Hastert - Illinois arch-neo-con currently Speaker of the House (the Speaker is third in line under the Constitution.) Pelosi is the first woman in history to become a major party leader in either house of Congress. As such, as Speaker, she could become the first woman President of the U.S. - not exactly what the "mighty Clinton wing" has in mind.

So it's obvious that Pelosi is in for some mud-slinging from the Republican propaganda machine, as well as from their allies among certain Democrats and in the corporate media. rAT has fallen for some of that propaganda.

rAT sez: 19.Dec.2005 10:01

rAT patrol

Hey- I don't fall for anything except brunette Libras. Don't take my word for it. Read the whole nine yards RIGHT NOW at  http://whatreallyhapened.com

did it again 19.Dec.2005 10:26

rATso

the URL is actually  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com sorry again

rAT's sources don't back what rAT says 19.Dec.2005 17:30

g.d. dem

Hey, rAT, I went to your link and found that it linked me to the exact same Washington Post story (December 16) that I have been using! I even searched on "Clinton" -- and got ZERO! There was also at your link a recent (December 13) story on Hillary from the Village Voice: "Anti-war lefties have had it with Clinton". So I searched there on "Pelosi" -- and got ZERO!

YOUR sources (Washington Post and Village Voice) make no claim as to Hillary and Pelosi working together AND no claim that Pelosi is "trying to sabotage the growing anti-war sentiment from becoming part of the 2008 Democratic Party platform" (your words).

What Pelosi did is recognize that the Democratic caucus had no consensus on Iraq and that the DLC pro-war Dems were trying to give Bush a break by getting the media to focus on a fight within the Democrats over Iraq. Pelosi did not fall for that.

Read what really happened here at PIMC --

All 5 Oregon Dems opposed the war!

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/330582.shtml

As for what you call Pelosi's "heated ideological war with the Howard Dean wing of the party" -- the only thing YOUR sources say is this: "Her comments ruling out a caucus position appeared to put Pelosi at odds with some other party officials." Then the Washington Post relates what Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said about that a consensus seems to be building among the Democrats. NOT some big battle between Pelosi and Dean! (There IS a big battle between Dean and the Clintons, but your disinformation just obscures that fact.)

There's enough disinfo out there - do you really need to add to it? What is your Hillary/Nancy trip anyway, a kind of hang-up about fems in politics?

YOUR source (Washington Post) verifies my statements about Pelosi, as follows:

< Pelosi, one of the most liberal Democrats in the House, opposed the war and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. She served as Democratic whip when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and she rallied 126 Democratic votes [in October, 2002] against the measure when then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the Democratic leader, supported the White House.

< In a wide-ranging interview, Pelosi labeled the Republican-controlled Congress "the most corrupt in history" and repeated her assertion that Democrats will make ethics a central issue next year. She said that the issue and ethical climate in the country point to Democratic gains next year, and noted that if the elections were held today, Democrats would take control of the House.

< If Democrats are able to win the majority next year, Pelosi pledged aggressive oversight of the administration on issues including the war, intelligence and how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina.

< Pelosi said Democrats scored significant victories recently, the biggest coming on Social Security, on which she said Democratic opposition to Bush's proposed private or personal accounts blocked any hopes the White House had for changing the government retirement insurance program this year.

< "Not only did we take him down on that, but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'people like me,' " she said.

YOUR source, rAT -- the source that whatreallyhappened.com cites --

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501814_pf.html

I don't trust her 19.Dec.2005 18:51

rATso

I just do not trust Nancy Pelosi or any other two-faced, bought and sold Democratic Party whiz to try and end this war right now. We need to be united in our opposition, not coddle the wavering by telling them they have to "follow their own conscience" (Pelosi's words) as far as ending the war goes. I say "WHAT conscience???" If anyone thinks there's a legitimate reason to keep this bloodbath going one day longer, I WANT TO KNOW WHY!!!! The only groups supporting this war are the GOP and Ariel Sharon's Israeli cabinet. Tell 'Nancy' to give back the $50,000 from AIPAC and I might some day believe peace in Iraq rap. Until then, it's pure politics as the new election year approaches. Watch the Dems squander the one chance they have to dump Republicans in '08 by 'playing ball' with them on keeping the war going in '06. And does anyone honestly think Nancy Pelosi has the sheer star power to be elected President? Or the sheer BALLS to oppose Diebold and whatever other shenanigans the GOP have up their sleeve for the next rigged vote? I smell another Democratic trainwreck on that one. Thanks for playing the 'feminist' card with me too. What a quick draw McGraw on that one! Not unexpected either. The only Dem I'd consider voting for Prez is Russ Feingold.

Who played the "feminist" card? 20.Dec.2005 05:33

g.d. dem

Accusing ME of playing the sissy card, rAT continues to attempt to identify Hillary and Pelosi WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support rAT's allegations. Even now, unable to refute my objections, rAT posts a doctored photo attempting to put Pelosi in bed with Queen Hillary.

I asked this: "What is your Hillary/Nancy trip anyway, a kind of hang-up about fems in politics?" I asked that BECAUSE there is no evidence (other than rAt's photo showing nothing but two women standing next to each other) of rAT's allegation that Pelosi can be subsumed under the Clinton wing of the party! Rather than defend what rAT has said - "Nancy and Hillary . . . try and Macarena their way back into the White House" - rAT continues to dodge the issues that I have raised and the facts that I have presented.

rAT doesn't trust Pelosi -- but I can't trust ANYTHING that rAT publishes because rAT prefers to publish a doctored photo rather than actually admit that there is no Hillary/Nancy thing as was alleged.

rAT ("I don't fall for anything except brunette Libras") publishes these two photos and then accuses ME of playing the sissy card?

Really, who is playing the "feminist" card?

George- 20.Dec.2005 10:41

rAT

george- (I know it's you) -you're really freaking out today! Don't you party operatives have any sense of humor? DIVIDE AND CONQUER seems to be Pelosi's philosophy concerning the anti-war sentiment on Capital Hill. Next time you stand on line at Krogers behind some young National Guard kid with one arm missing, I want you to ask yourself why this was allowed to happen. He'll never completely hug his wife and kid again, or swing a bat in the back yard, or drive a motorcycle, or any of the things you and I take for granted. WHY is he like this? I say END THE GODDAMNED WAR RIGHT THIS SECOND. He's missing that arm so Chevron can jack my gas prices sky high. Period. All this political dithering and positioning just before elections is an obscene excercise in futility. Remember the great 'March on Washington' to end the war, a few months back? NO MAJOR ELECTED DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS SHOWED UP TO SPEAK. (Jessie Jackson doesn't count). The Murtha deal is a nice safe platform to appear 'anti-war' from. A nice hazy, mushy, Rorschadt test sort of platform. What do you see in there, voter? I see BUSINESS AS USUAL. ps- Are you a photo expert now? I found it on the web, along with everything else.

I am not George 20.Dec.2005 17:11

g.d. dem

And I am pretty sure that George Bender would not appreciate that thought!

I think that Bender is of the old school -- posts under his one and only name and only under that name.

Also, Bender - I believe - isn't even a Democrat by a long stretch. He's been a Nader loyalist for years! But he is also a realist.

BTW: I don't disagree with you about the war. But I do call bullshit on your wingnut distortion of what Pelosi is doing and stands for. Also I call bullshit that the vote on the October resolution back in 2002 was "political dithering and positioning just before elections" -- it was a moment of truth. Kerry failed at that point. Pelosi passed, as did all the Oregon Democrats in Congress. There was no way that their votes against the resolution got them any campaign funds or media support (or even any votes) in November, 2002.

P.S. I understand that you are angry about the war. So am I. But don't let anger blind you. As Gandhi said, the point of "non-violence" isn't to be passive, it's to fight -- but without fear. No need to be anything but totally realistic -- without fear and without anger distorting our judgment.

I am also not a "party operative" 20.Dec.2005 17:15

g.d. dem

And I have a hard time keeping my sense of humor when I find myself standing in line "at Krogers behind some young National Guard kid with one arm missing".

sick of this thread 20.Dec.2005 17:52

rATso

I'm sick of this thread anyway. You AND Bender. We'll see where Pelosi's really at soon enough Mr. "dem". Ovah & out.

one more little thing- 20.Dec.2005 18:03

rAT

Hey kids- type the words 'nancy pelosi' into the PDX IMC search engine and press search. Check out some of the stories. PELOSI VOTES FOR HOMELAND SECURITY****PELOSI GIVES PEP TALK TO AIPAC*****PELOSI WILL BACK BUSH IF US INVADES IRAQ***** byeee

be 20.Dec.2005 18:18

fair

now!

Pelosi gives pep talk to AIPAC 20.Dec.2005 18:32

outsider


Stupid bullshit 21.Dec.2005 01:19

g.d. dem

Here we had a sensible suggestion by George Bender - a practical idea for something that we really can do to influence how things are going with the war - and the subject becomes Nancy Pelosi - who is accused of being a tool for Hillary Clinton.

NANCY PELOSI, who if you will LOOK AT THE LIST of those who have signed on to the Murtha proposal, INCLUDES NANCY PELOSI.

What is this "hate Pelosi" campaign? Who or what is behind it?

Enough of this pissing contest.

Over and out.