Skip to main content


A couple of weeks ago I wrote, regarding the House vote against the escalation, that to "oppose the escalation is an important first step, but it must be the beginning of our debate, not the end."  Today, I wanted to take a moment to follow up on that post, and make my position clear -

the only money I will support for Iraq is funding that is used for the withdrawal of every last US soldier and military contractor from Iraq.

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq because President Bush refuses to recognize that it’s time to bring our troops home, his is a position that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American public.  Democrats were elected in November in conservative districts across the country so that we could find an end to the war, and now the majority of the American public supports a time-bound withdrawal plan that ensures that our troops return home in a safe and orderly fashion.  

It’s time to end our military occupation of Iraq, and it’s time to fully fund our withdrawal.

Conservatives have tried to portray the progressive position as one of cutting off funding for our troops in the field, and many have questioned our patriotism.  Others have gone so far as to claim that we are working against our men and women in harm’s way.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and we must stand up and confront their lies.

A fully funded withdrawal would ensure that our military commanders have any and all resources available to them to bring our troops home, while providing for their security during the process.  This isn’t about cutting funding, this about providing the resources for an orderly withdrawal, allowing our troops to come home to their families, and for our military to regroup, and stand prepared to defend our country if, and when, we are truly faced with a threat to our national security.


Originally posted to Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:32 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  FFW is good frame but (20+ / 0-)

        issues of timeline, etc. are crucial; maybe Obama/ISG plan to withdraw by March '08 is optimum.

        Thanks Lynn!

  •  Hear hear! n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, greeseyparrot, JohnB47, TomP

    The only way out of Iraq is OUT. Case closed. GTFO ASAP!

    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:38:43 PM PST

  •  "the fastest way home is through Bagdad" (11+ / 0-)

    this is what the troops were told over four years ago.  and as the politicians squabble, the troops are being held hostage by a failed foreign policy.

    It is long past time that the troops start returning home.  Democrats should focus on doing the right thing and not what may or may not affect next year's election.

    God bless you Lynn for your courage on this devisive issue that Bush and Rove have hoisted on the American people for their own manical and politically twisted reasons.  

  •  Bush is just trying (18+ / 0-)

    to run out the clock so he can say that he didn't lose the occupation, and he doesn't care how many people die or are wounded in the meantime.  Please stop this maniac.

    I think that I shall never see, a billboard lovely as a tree. Perhaps unless all billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all. - Ogden Nash

    by Grannus on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:41:01 PM PST

  •  ThankYou! (15+ / 0-)

    I appreciate your sensible position on this issue, and I hope your colleagues support you.

    Please let us know how we can help!

  •  You so totally rock! nt (8+ / 0-)

    Find a local farmers market near you.

    by bittergirl on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:46:27 PM PST

  •  Excellent (12+ / 0-)

    Hopefully the rest of your House colleagues can agree with this framing!

    Speaking of which, what is your position on the Murtha proposal? All I've heard from the Democratic side is the criticism from Blue Dogs.

    Progressive Wave
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:47:03 PM PST

  •  This is fantastic! (14+ / 0-)

    I'm glad for the sensible terminology change - the Republicans have mastered the art of the sound bite, and we have to be equally effective - this is a step in the right direction.  But we need to watch out for the "stabbed in the back" narrative that's sure to follow - in five years, it will be "we would have won in Iraq if the Dems hadn't stabbed us in the back, the traitors", etc...

    How do we avoid that eventuality?  Yes, we need to get out of Iraq, but we can't allow them to use it as a lever and regain power - they need to stay in the minority for a generation (or two, or three...)

    The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. - Albert Einstein

    by AnotherMassachusettsLiberal on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:49:56 PM PST

  •  Way to go (6+ / 0-)

    Great work, Cong Woolsey. Stick with this position. Don't get into baloney about we might need to attack Iran or Syria (That's what Sen Levin said last week- idiotic). We must finish what we have started by bringing the troops home- I would accept the idea of sending 10-20,000 to Afghanistan where we seem to be trying to alienate the entire population, but staying in Iraq is wrong.
    Don't allow ANY NEW WARS unless the US Homeland is attacked by a government or its agents. Our schools and healthcare need the money we are wasting in Iraq.

  •  it's only sensible (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, JohnB47, TomP, elwior

    i don't understand why it's being painted in such black and white terms

    this makes perfect sense to me

    No, I'm more liberal than you!

    by cookiebear on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:52:04 PM PST

  •  Thank You (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, elwior

    Let's Get People Behind this!

  •  Thank you Congresswoman (10+ / 0-)

    This makes perfect sense to me, and I would imagine a majority of the American public.  You are a fighter, don't give up now, you are finally getting somewhere.  I can only try and imagine your frustration, because it appears you are surrounded by idiots.  By the way,  Merry Fitzmas!  Write to us again soon!

  •  Congresswoman, (7+ / 0-)

    I applaud your efforts. Keep the heat on the crooks in the White House.

    The evidence of serious crimes commited by Bush, et al is overwhelming. For the sake of our Constitution, begin the impeachment hearings.

  •  Agreed. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    macdust, David Boyle, JohnB47, figleef, TomP, elwior

    Wonderfully stated.  Funding a withdrawal is about: 1) supporting our troops by bringing them home; and 2) enhancing our national security such that we would be prepared to defend ourselves against any aggressors.

    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -- Thomas Jefferson [-4.25, -5.33]

    by GTPinNJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:58:50 PM PST

  •  Withdrawal in any form. Bush was wrong. (6+ / 0-)

    This war was wrong. The country has lost and continues to lose as long as we're there. We will only win when our troops are out.
    Congresswoman, you're the best. Any way you can frame the argument without falling into semantic strawmen traps is fine with me.
    Supporting the troops has nothing to do with supporting an administration that has done nothing but abuse our military. An administration that has abused its authority, attacked the Constitution and lied to the citizens of this country, must not be allowed to continue dragging the image and reputation of our nation down.
    Lynn Woolsey, I salute you as a patriot. Thank you.

  •  Excellent stuff, Congresswoman (5+ / 0-)

    I'm very, very pleased to see you and the other members of the progressive wing of our party standing up and asserting that this war must come to an end.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:05:50 PM PST

  •  How will the rest of the dems line up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle

    With the Blue Dog coalition seeming to oppose such moves, how will this get through congress.

    I support a complete with drawal and support Murtha's plan to only allow troops go with complete rest, training and equipement certified by the military brass.

    Bring them home now.

    If you are looking for Truth, you better be ready to change your mind.

    by jimraff on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:06:38 PM PST

  •  Please do it! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, David Boyle, Esjaydee, TomP, elwior

    Representative Woolsey, thank you for focusing on this.   Even as estimates for the troop surge increases.  It is madness, for everyone but military contractors,  to think we can 'win' a civil war in a foreign country.  

    "Let us not be conservative with compassion. Be generous with compassion."

    by ilyana on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:13:15 PM PST

  •  Congresswoman, Rerspectfully (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, Disillusioned, elwior

    I'd like to ask a simple question. Congress has the authority to declare war. It therefore follows logically that congress has the authority to declare a cessation of hostilities.

    Rather than playing games with funding and politics, why not simply declare an end to this war by recinding the original authorization completely or by declaring an immediate and complete withdrawal?

    Do you really think you are fooling anyone with this? I see right through it, it's hard for me to believe that others here will not.

  •  Signing statements (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, David Boyle

    The problem is that if Congress passes something like this, Bush will issue a signing statement along the lines of:

    The executive branch shall construe this act in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief.

    And then take the money, and not pull out.

    For this kind of thing to be effective, you need to first resolve the rather substantial constitutional crisis that is currently being ignored by Congress.

  •  Congresswoman Woolsey You Have (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    roseba, David Boyle, joliberal, Cook, TomP

    consistently supported a safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and I commend you for your position. However, from what is being reported in the media, your stance may not be the position pursued by Democratic House leadership as depicted in this WaPo article:

    Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.   [...]

    The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between anti-war Democrats, led by John Murtha (Pa.), who have wanted to devise standards of troop readiness strict enough to force Bush to delay some deployments and bring some troops home, and Democrats wary of seeming to place restrictions on the president's role as commander in chief.

    IMO the strategy outlined above would be disastrous for the Democratic Party and would only prolong our occupation of Iraq and needlessly risk the lives of our troops in order to placate some members of Congress. It is a strategy that will accomplish little in the goal of getting out of Iraq, makes the Democratic Party look like it using Iraq for political gain rather than strongly advocating a policy based on sound judgement and moral reasons. With this type of legislation you become owners of this occupation along with the Republicans and take the pressure off the Republicans. This strategy IMO will lose you the very votes that helped gain the party a majority position in November.   Many people, particularly those in the military, voted Democratic for the first times in their lives. Millions of people donated their hard earned funds to numerous Democratic candidates across the country and worked long hours to convince skeptical independent and previous Republican voters that a Democratic majority could make a difference. Please do not let leadership lose the gains that we worked so hard to achieve.

    Also, if Senior Democrats believe that useless token gestures will placate those who oppose the continued occupation of Iraq, they are seriously mistaken. I, for one, ignore speeches of good intent that are not followed up with decisive action and am getting seriously disillusioned with the party.

  •  You're preaching to the choir here (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bstotts, peagreen, TomP, elwior

    congresswoman, and also the very Americans who voted in November to get that very thing done.  I hope more of congress verbalizes that importance the way you do.  Because the American people are fed up with this war and they're getting fed up with the democrats dancing around this issue.  They're getting angry.  I'm getting angry.  I want to see funding for withdrawal only.  I don't want to here about placating the Blue Dogs.  I don't want to hear about non-binding resolutions.  I don't want to hear about the 50th iteration of the legislation that tries to sound like it's going to something about the Iraq war and in reality do nothing.  I want the war occupation to end and the troops to come home to their loved ones.

  •  Thank you for your courageous leadership. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, TomP, elwior
  •  Thank You... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, TomP, elwior

    ...Congresswoman Woolsey.  If it weren't for you and other members of the Progressive Caucus I would have emigrated years ago.

    "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

    by aybayb on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:23:16 PM PST

  •  Idiocy - simple idiocy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    roseba, fat old man, Lesser Dane, elwior

    Congresswoman, you are answering the wrong question.  It's not how soon we can get every soldier out of Iraq, and whether the withdrawal is "fully funded".  The question is, what is the plan to negotiate a final status for Iraq that makes some attempt to protect civilian populations? The country may divide, or it may remain united.  But we need to be discussing what happens when the last US soldier leaves.  We need to be pressuring the Bush Administration on a regional conference, or setting the stage for one when the Democrats finally take over the White House.  We need to think about what happens to the Kurdistan region, the only functioning, self-governing and stable part of the country.  You have not heard of that area or its 6 million residents, I'll bet.  They are not Americans, so it is reasonable that their lives are not really your concern.  That's fine, but unless you demonstrate a little knowledge of people or the region, I will feel quite free to criticise you.  

    If you decide that the only thing that matters is getting every US service member home, focus on that alone, and the result is a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan or a genocide in Baghdad, you can blame Bush all you want - but that sort of black-white, on-off way of conducting foreign policy is little better than the go-it-alone militarism of Bush.  You are presenting a false choice.  Instead, demand a phased withdrawal, pressure the admnistration on a regional conference, and hold hearings to force the Administration to acknowledge their lack of planning for when the massacres start.  That way, at least, you will have a little more ammunition in 2008 and you might - might - force a rational discussion on what happens when things really go bad in Iraq.

    •  Maybe the Congresswoman isn't quite (6+ / 0-)

      as firm a believer in American Exceptionalism as you.

      Perhaps she thinks that maybe, just maybe, it's time to let the Iraqi's determine their own fate without us - or the Brits - fucking with them anymore.

      Isn't close to a century of imperialism enough?

      •  I think the Iraqis should determine their future (5+ / 0-)

        And I'm not in favor of us imposing a solution. All I'm saying is an immediate withdrawal, without any provisions for refugee protection or an attempt to broker a regional peace agreement, is foolish.  

        If your idea of the Iraqis determining their own future is to stand by and watch widespread massacres of Sunnis in retribution for car bombings... or for 6 million Kurds to be denied their right to determine their own future, well then you are welcome to the moral high ground. I am not saying the US alone is responsible for solving this problem, but neither am I saying that the only possible response we have right now is the black and white option of withdrawal only, or indeterminate occupation.  For the last time... regional conference, reinvolve the UN to the extent possible, and use our military to protect civilian enclaves as the country divides - like in Yugoslavia. That's not what the Congresswoman advocated.  She advocated not a cent for anything except troop withdrawal.  Nothing for refugee relief, nothing for emergency services, etc.  

        The crack about american exceptionalism is rude and misplaced.    

        •  Well, it's nice to see the "Oh my god, it'll (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Disillusioned, theran

          be a bloodbath is we leave" arguements recycled from the Vietnam era.

          Saves stress on the ole' brain cells I suppose.

          And frankly, the whole funding issue is quite irrelevant to the progress of the Iraq debacle - the Bush Administration will carry on with or without congressional budget appropriations.

          The only solution is to get rid of them - either by waiting two more years or impeaching now.  Every thing else - non-binding resolutions, funding mechanisms, etc. is just so much sound and fury . . .

          •  Vietnam? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David Boyle

            That's your war, old timer, not mine. 93 people were destroyed today by a Sunni fundamentalist suicide bomber attacking - not US troops - but Shia' civilians. Thihs has become routine.  You might want to consider the level of anger that is building within the Shia' community, and how that anger is likely to play out.  Impeachment - all in favor of it.  Standing aside if a genocide takes place - not so much.

        •  Sunni vs. Shia is our soldiers' problem? (0+ / 0-)

          Since when do the referees at a pistol duel stand between the armed fighters?

          We are all criminals until we restore Habeas Corpus, empty secret gulags, end torture and illegal wiretaps. (-2.25, -2.56)

          by EclecticFloridian on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:05:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Did you read HR 508? (0+ / 0-)

          That is what she's proposing for a SOLUTION.  It has many provisions to assist in handing the country back to the Iraqis with their safety and stability in mind.

          I believe what is being proposed in this funding bill amendment is a mandate that we need to begin the leaving phase--no more pointless attempts at advancing this failed and deadly occupation.  The solution is not simply leaving and that's the end of it.  HR 508 provides the details once we've redirected our objective--withdrawal.  

    •  Withdrawal (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Boyle, drewfromct, ivorybill, elwior

      without a clear plan for peace, (other than getting our guys out of Iraq) is as fool hardy as invasion without a plan for the aftermath.

    •  What an outrageous, insulting comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm shocked, offended, and embarrassed by this comment.

      Rep. Woolsey, Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is one of the most intelligent and courageous people in government.

      Her leadership on this issue is exactly what we need right now.

      A liberal is a conservative who's been hugged.

      by raatz on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:02:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are alternatives (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoenix Woman, drewfromct

        to the Bush escalation. The International Crisis Group plan is certainly worth considering:
        After Baker-Hamilton: What to Do in Iraq   

        What set me off was this:

        the only money I will support for Iraq is funding that is used for the withdrawal of every last US soldier and military contractor from Iraq.

        A civil war is rapidly growing; at minimum Congress should be appropriating and requiring the Administration to support UN relief operations.  Woolsey knows this. To focus on withdrawal alone, without adequately supporting humanitarian relief and pushing the administration on the ISG or ICG recommendations, is what is truly shocking.  

    •  Please read HR 508, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, drewfromct, kwanseum

      the resolution proposed by Woolsey/Waters/Lee.  It may not exactly conform with your assessment of what needs to be done, but it's the only proposal I've seen that actually does deal with more than simple withdrawal or manipulation of funding.  Please read it before you accuse Congresswoman Woolsey of being ignorant of any of the details concerning the situation.  I know her fairly well, and you are totally off base here.  Her proposal is not aimed solely at a short calendar for removing our military from a situation that cannot ultimately be resolved by our continued military occupation, but it does look to establishing incentives for Iraqis (and the region) to achieve stability.  

      No matter what course is taken, it's not without perils and consequences.  WE cannot be the sole determiner and designer of the government and landscape in the Middle East.  Our military can occupy the country forever, and that still will not solve the problem.  It may keep the lid on, but it won't solve the problem.  And the problem does really need to be solved by the people of the region (not withstanding some possible multinational regional or UN involvement).  We do have to learn that it's not our right to redesign the world to our liking (and too often when it's actually the agenda of neo-cons).  We need to step out of our role of regime designer for the world.  

      •  Is there anything (0+ / 0-)

        in HR 508 about oil?

        Any proposed solution to the Iraquagmire must address the real reason we're there, or it's just more B.S.

        As much as I hate to say this, the truth is that we can't just pull out and leave the oilfields in the hands of our enemies--at least not as long as we're still addicted to the black gold. What we should be doing is putting all our money and effort into developing alternative energy to free us from our oil addiction. Only then will it be safe for us to pull our forces out of the Middle East.

        Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

        by drewfromct on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:32:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it addresses (0+ / 0-)

          the oil issue.  Read HR 508.  

          One of its provisions:  Prohibits US participation in any long-term Iraqi oil production sharing agreements without prior open debate in Iraq and promulgation and enactment by the Iraqi National Assembly of new Iraqi law to govern investiment, location, development, production, and marketing of Iraqi petroleum resources.  

          Lest we forget, their oil is THEIR resource, not ours.  We may want their oil, but that doesn't mean we can invade and occupy a country to get it.  We no sooner hit the ground in Iraq before we began parceling out their oil to our oil industry--with contracts giving the Iraqis the very short end of the deal.  

          You're right.  We need to put "all our money and effort into developing alternative energy to free us from our oil addiction."  What I don't agree with is your conclusion that "only then will it be safe for us to pull our forces out of the Middle East."  Our "addiiction" does not give us the right to own or regulate their oil!  If they wish to share their resource with us, and to their national benefit and profit, then it should be on those terms.  We cannot invade countries, or orchestrate regime change, because we want their oil only on terms that benefit us (or our corrupt oil industry CEOs).  This is something we desparately need to understand.

          HR 508 attempts to provide incentives for Iraqis to come together to stablize their country so that they can benefit and profit from that stability.  Yeah, they may struggle while they work this out--but the decision is theirs.  

  •  Forget "the case" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Disillusioned, theran, elwior

    Just get going on passing a bill that makes it happen!

    A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.

    by nightsweat on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:30:13 PM PST

  •  Thank you Congresswoman (4+ / 0-)

    We apreciate your posts here, please encourage your colleagues to post also.
    As you probably know, most of us here have been tearing our hair out waiting for the Democrats that we supported so strongly to take a firm stand on the leading issue of the day, namely the horrific war in Iraq.
    To say most of us have been gravely disappointed is a severe understatement.
    I think the proposal you are working on is a welcome change, and I hope that you are succesfull, but I do worry very much about the even greater chaos that we may leave behind if we just abandon the country. Like it or not, Colin Powell was right about one thing, we broke it, we bought it.
    How do you propose to protect the thousands of Iraqis who worked with us? Won't they be targetted first if we leave? I feel that as badly as I want us out of Iraq there must be some provision for a UN force or some agreement with Iraqs neighbors to help contain the violence. Is a three way split such as Biden suggests a possible solution?
    We all want our troops out of harms way as fast as possible, but we cannot let Iraq collapse completely, and I'd like to hear how you plan deal with that.

  •  Thank you for the update... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, cotterperson, 4Freedom, elwior

    and for fighting the good fight.  I wish all the Democrats showed your courage.

    Please keep us updated and remember that it is not lost on this community that some of our representatives like yourself post here to keep us informed while others only show up during election season.

    The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

    by cometman on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:36:46 PM PST

  •  I Hear You, But... (7+ / 0-)

    Congresswoman, I truly understand and respect what you are saying.  My son is active duty military, and I would not want to see his life endangered because of lack of life-sustaining supplies, etc.  OTOH, the Congress has the responsibility of funding, or defunding the Military as a control over possible abuse or misuse of the Military by the Executive.

    Today in Iraq:  Nine more US troops, and 90+ Iraqis died in Iraq.  If anyone can explain exactly how our presence there is benefiting Iraq, our troops or our nation, I’m waiting to hear an explanation that I would believe and accept as being worth the cost in lives as well as the cost to our economy.

    Bush wants more money, however, there continue to surface reports like the following, which show the Administration’s total mismanagement of US tax dollars in Iraq:  
    Baghdad Mayor Lashes Out at US for Spending Huge Sums "on projects to collect rubbish and plant trees while his devastated war-torn city struggles without electricity."

    "...At a meeting in the city's Green Zone the mayor, Sabir al-Isawi, interrupted US officials in the middle of a presentation to key Iraqi officials, to say these schemes are "not what the people want"...
    "...He was echoing the feelings of many critics of America's priorities since Baghdad's infrastructure was all but destroyed since the US-led invasion in 2003..."

    Meanwhile, while US tax dollars go to fund planting trees in Baghdad, there are inadequate funds to properly treat and house the US troops wounded in Bush's War.  
    Can Congress in good conscience, continue to give Bush more money as well as more US troop lives to recklessly squander?

    •  Sorry to hijack your comment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurious, elwior

      but now it all makes sense why Hillary has been such a strong Iraq war supporter:

      "I've picked up my share of trash," said Clinton, speaking to several hundred volunteers on the steps of City Hall. "I've planted my share of trees. I know if we work together we will have a cleaner and greener environment."

      The annual event, put on from March 1 to May 31 by Keep America Beautiful, encourages Americans to pick up litter, paint over graffiti and otherwise try to improve their communities.

      (from the LA times)

      Maybe she could take her act from LA over to Baghdad . . . .?

  •  Thanks for having some courage... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, elwior

    It is more then a lot of politicians can claim.

    I said prior to the war it was illegal and a grave mistake and I still say that now. Except is now with an "I told you so..."

    I am not privvy to any special information and it was clear as the broad side of a barn that this was a terrible error.

    You are one of the few folks in washington who have earned my support by having a firm grasp of the obvious and not giving into fear and blatent dis-information.

    What else can I see from a distance ?

    Bush is mad and must be stopped before he starts a much wider war that destroys our country.

    If anyone thinks the stock market will react well to de-stabilization of the middle east oil supply they should see me about buying some swampland in Florida.

    Of course I got the Bush 100% tax cut in 2000 so I have very little left to lose, other folks with SUV's and McMansions could be much more adversely affected.

    I can eat dirt and survive, I don't think they can...


  •  Sad. (4+ / 0-)

    Support our Troops - Stop funding the War!!

    by annefrank on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:55:33 PM PST

  •  Inverse Logic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, MichiganGirl

      That's what Senator Webb calls the notion of funding this insane war in order to support the troops. Why are the troops there in the first place?
      Yes, there needs to be opposition to the "surge," and there needs to be strong opposition to another war in Iran. But beyond opposing expansion of hostilities, it's people like Congresswoman Woolsey that keep the offensive energy going on ending the present war, and we have to do what we can to support her efforts.
       Our elected representatives need to step up in order to end the madness. There's nothing irresponsible in that, as diplomatic solutions are and have always been available and have regional and world wide support.
      Let's stop bowing to inverse logic.

    "We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution

    by elwior on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:19:34 PM PST

  •  Thanks Congresswoman. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, chgobob

    Please keep trying as you have been to end this war.

    "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

    by TomP on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:25:48 PM PST

  •  I am waiting for the troops to support (0+ / 0-)

    the constitution.  So many of them wondered if following Bush's orders was supporting Bush or the Constitution.  I think they know now.

    Bring them home!  We have got to stop the harm and death.

  •  Representative Woolsey, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'd like to respectfully point out that the way your framing reads in your title, there is a potential suggestion that you or your colleagues would consider a "partially" funded withdrawl.

    I know you all are happy that you figured out what the funding should be spent on and everything and want to use this "fully funded" phrase, but you might need to be careful about how you use it in a sentence.

    Best and many thanks for trying to get us out of there.

  •  Good luck with this one... (0+ / 0-)

    FFW is going to translate into "cut and run".  Tell your colleagues not to sweat a "cut and run" frame.  The voters heard a lot of it in the run-up to the election.  The voters don't seem to have a problem with "cut and run".  The voters, however, seem to have a big problem with maintaining the status quo.

    You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

    by ultrageek on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:33:02 PM PST

  •  Good on ya, Rep. Woolsey! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We've got your back on this one!

    Thank you so much for standing up and demonstrating true support of the troops, by working to bring them home.

  •  "Progress" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Bush reports progress is being made since the surge. Is this how he defines progress: Today's news - 100 killed in bomb blast. Nine US soldiers killed in suicide bombing. Please forgive my bluntness, Congresswoman, but Bush is full of it. US citizens will read these headlines and know the truth. This war is a disaster - our country wants its children out of harm's way - YESTERDAY.

    Thank you for your support.

  •  Thank you, Congresswoman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, 4Freedom

    This war needs to end.

    This is a good first step.

    1984: Orwell wrote a cautionary tale. Bush mistook it for a manifesto.

    by mungley on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:42:07 PM PST

  •  I thought there were proposals (0+ / 0-)

    funding troops on the ground while cutting off funding for new adventures already?

    What am I missing?

  •  Is Tammy Baldwin, WI-2 on board on this? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, 4Freedom

    Because she had better be.

    "In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." Chomsky

    by formernadervoter on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:57:47 PM PST

    •  I ask the same of Peter Welch of Vermont (0+ / 0-)

      He campaigned and won over a popular female Republican ex-National Guard Adjutant General on an anti-war platform.

      I would like to know if he supports your efforts.

      Thank you.

      When all is said and done, it is likely more will be said than done. Harry Truman

      by 4Freedom on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:11:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you can get Pelosi to put one up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    we'll be backing it 110%.  The trick is that part about Pelosi ;)

  •  Blue dogs will be the death of us.. (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you Louise..Keep pushing..I believe its wag the dog concerning iran.  to get our mind off of the terrible things bush and company have done they want our attection elsewhere, even if they have to manufacturer lies like they did in the past. Those blue dogs and corp. dems. that are continuing to waste our soldiers for no good reason will be the death of us..

  •  Pelosi means well... (0+ / 0-)

    but she spend too much time playing the "game". She needs to step back from the beltway politics crap for once. The red Dems gotta go!

  •  Thank you for your statement. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I appreciate your willingness to come out and face the unruly mob... and I know that if you've kept your eye on things here you've noticed there is a growing dismay among the ranks.  

    There must be a way to end-this-mess-now... the Democratic party needs to agree how amongst itself.  

    There is plenty of money to fund a withdrawal.  We are not naive here about how money flows in the Pentagon.  That should not stop the House from de-funding the war.

    If it's the only way then it's the only way.  It is a way.  Use it.

    Then impeach.

    "...history is a tragedy not a melodrama" - I.F. Stone

    by bigchin on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:17:30 PM PST

  •  Thank you Congresswoman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raatz, 4Freedom

    For this and for your support of a US Department of Peace.  We can and should do better.

  •  I love this proposal, (0+ / 0-)

    what are the benchmarks to guage the effectiveness of the current escalation?

    you learn something new every day, if you're paying attention

    by jhop7 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:40:26 PM PST

  •  I see both pluses and minuses to your proposal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle

    On the plus side, your notion that we fund an orderly withdrawal is thoughtful, responsible, supportive of the troops, measured, and looks well-nigh perfect.  Even as virulently anti-Iraq war as I am, the notion of leaving them high and dry leaves a cold hollow in my gut.  But, there is a minus:  once Congress has granted funding for the specific purpose of exiting the Iraq war, what is to keep the Bush Administration from misdirecting those funds?

    I mean no disrespect:  your voice has been consistently in opposition to this war, and I appreciate your efforts.  I do not doubt that you will draft a careful bill.  My difficulty in seeing this as a win-win scenario is that I do not trust the Bush Administration to accept Congressional direction.  Only starving the war beast will end this.  Yet I know you are concerned to not abandon those deployed in Iraq.  If my husband were still in th service, I would not be able to bear such a thing.  That does not mean I think there is no way around this.

    I would urge you to think about alternative means to fund a withdrawal besides a military expenditures bill.  Classic misdirection is called for here, I think.  What follows is not a digression:  I hope you have, or soon will, see the film Amazing Grace.  It gave me much food for thought.  William Wilberforce and his allies in Parliament and in the abolition movement found ways to circumvent the outright opposition of the Tories, thus effectively killing Britain's slave trade.

    "Fighting Fascism is Always Cool." -- Amsterdam Weekly, volume three, issue 18

    by Noor B on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:01:10 PM PST

  •  Rep Woolsey! (0+ / 0-)

    Heard you on NPR the other day.
    Very nice. Keep up the high-profile stuff.
    We need your voice to be heard.

    Have you read Hunter's diary, Weeks not Months today?

    I think he puts it nicely.
    This war is reaching a tipping point.
    It's now or disaster...

    Thanks for your support!


    If you dance with the devil, then you haven't got a clue; 'Cause you think you'll change the devil, but the devil changes you. - illyia

    by illyia on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:05:25 PM PST

  •  It will be a disaster if we leave (0+ / 0-)

    it will be a disaster if we stay.

    If we are going to pay for something, and we should for having busted up the place and effecting the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, we should pay for someone with a reputable peacekeeping record (UN, for example) to step in so that we don't leave chaos and that we don't simply abandon the place.

    We can't afford it but why compound it by getting our own people killed in a war we have already lost.

    We have to pay for it but we don't need our people getting killed more everyday.

    Give me ten lines from a good man and I'll find something in there to hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu

    by lgrooney on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:25:56 PM PST

  •  Thanks for visiting us here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and if I may suggest, please convince your Democratic colleagues that the vast majority of america wants us out of iraq...not just a few on the left "fringe".

  •  HR 508 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    looks like an outstanding bill.

    Thank you!

    Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad. ~J. Madison

    by wolverine 06 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:40:05 PM PST

  •  I agree with your goal, but ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle

    how do you specifically word an appropriations resolution to provide that funds can only be used for withdrawal?

    During any strategic retreat, there must normally be tactical attacks.  How could a resolution be written that would be flexible enough to permit the military to conduct an orderly, safe, strategic withdrawal, that wouldn't be so loose that it would permit the administration to simply continue the war under the guise of providing for the safety of the troops?  It's an intriguing concept, but I have difficulty envisioning how it could be written into solid, mandatory, language of a bill.

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

    by leevank on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:43:45 PM PST

  •  Iraq Is Now the Democrats' War (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    danmac, 4Freedom

    I believe that Democrats no longer have the luxury of assuming the American people view Iraq as "Bush's mistake."  On November 6, the voters essentially fired Bush because he refuses to do what they want regarding Iraq: get out.  So, I think the voters are now hoping that the Democrats will do what the voters want.  If the Democrats do not -- and they appear to be in their all too common 'dither mode' about the right course of action -- they can be fired, too.

  •  Great Policy Position, Congresswoman (0+ / 0-)

    Straightforward, simple, honest, and true support for American troops.  All it should take is one-page legislation in Everyman's language.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 06:03:04 PM PST

  •  It's nice having some people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    represent the will of the majority of progressives.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 06:28:03 PM PST

  •  Thank you Congresswoman Woolsey (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I read the bill's language and it looks excellent to me. I hope you and your colleagues will refuse to vote for any compromise of the basic principle that we need to be working towards withdrawal.

  •  Well, withdraw them fast, I am fed up (0+ / 0-)

    with all of it and Congress is not acting fast enough.

    "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

    by mimi on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 06:41:55 PM PST

    •  How do you convince the GOP/BlueDogs to do it? (0+ / 0-)

      Woolsey and the majority of the Dems are with us.  But that's not enough to pass legislation.

      •  You don't convince the GOP (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        They won't be convinced, they have too much invested at this point to fold. It would be an admission of failure seldom seen in the annals of political history, so they will continue on until denial no longer works in the face of imminent collapse. Pushing legislation that has no chance of passing in the Senate, or surviving a veto doesn't mean you don't do it. By making the effort, you draw a clear distinction between you and the opposition, and you help legitimize your plan with the electorate by planting the seed in the public mind. The GOP has been doing this for thirty-years, pushing radical, unpopular ideas in a tireless effort to gain a public hearing and therefore, legitimacy for their crackpot ideas. If it works for unpopular ideas like social security privatization, it'll certainly work for popular ones like leaving Iraq immediately.

        The Blue Dogs are another story. The easiest way to get the attention of the Blue Dogs--put them on notice, if that doesn't work, work to replace them with more progressive Democrats. This has always been the trouble with the "big tent" ethos, when it comes to establishing a unified policy on important issues, it is all but impossible. We see it on everything from defense to trade agreements to bankruptcy to tax policy. Nothing gets done. Republican unity managed to ram through a litany of bad legislation even with a Democratic president. Democratic disunity has killed more good legislation then Republican opposition ever has.

      •  Maybe, allow people to debate and vote on it? (0+ / 0-)

        Have you noticed that the current leadership won't allow Obama's or Woolsey's bills to even be debated or voted on?

        When the Republicans did this, we cursed them.  Now we look the other way, and pretend it's about not having a "majority".  Shame on us.

        You can cry all you want about it being the GOP/BlueDogs fault, but if those bills aren't voted on, Nancy and Harry and their supporters are the new owners of the Iraq war.

  •  Think the press will listen now? (0+ / 0-)

    As I'm sure you know, we have shared your frustration at the neglect the media has given to your caucus, and many other issues, in the past. It's vital that the American people hear from you, us, what your plan entails. We can not allow the media or the Republican party to assign their cutesy or malicious nicknames to your plan. At the least, we have to be more vocal than them. I have no doubt that the majority of the American people will back you in this if they get the true details.

    Thank you so, so much for all that you do. It's getting difficult not to lose hope that what we've all worked so hard for in the last year will not get our young men and women home. You renew my hope. Sincerely, you do.

  •  Thanks, Lynn (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for all you do.  We in your district are truly fortunate.  

    I'm glad to see that you're advocating standing up to "confront their lies."  As a past English teacher, I always stressed to my students that the best way to win an argument is to confront the other side head-on.  If you know you're right and their points have no substance, then take those points on right off.  Don't hide from them--bring them out yourself and take them apart right at the beginning.  Point out and knock down the fallacies, the weaknesses, the misconceptions.  If you start off by clearing up the misconceptions, then the listener is more open to what you have to say.  You've kind of cleared the field.  If you have a strong case, it's made only stronger by your ability to state not only your side, but confront and take apart the opposition--you almost never convince the listener if you avoid the other side.  

    The Dems need to get together and formulate their argument by exposing the deceptions of the blind course we've been following.  It's not just the "supporting the troops" by giving BushCo more money to continue this politically motivated occupation that must be exposed and refuted, but the whole concept that we are somehow furthering the case for "democracy" by continuing our military presence in Iraq.  This "war" has little to do with democracy and everything to do with economic take over and domination.  Bring out the points, and lay out the facts.  Undermine their argument.  Keep focusing on key discrepancies between the BushCo "goals" (what we BELIEVE we're fighting for) and the realities (what the neo-cons actually tried to set up) in Iraq.

    For Americans to step away from this "war," they have to understand that the "goals" Bush is professing are not the goals of actuality, if you will.  BushCo is continuing this slaughter under cover of disparate goals--his goals and those falsely fed to the public.  I'm not talking here about the lie that led us into this cynically orchestrated invasion--though that lie was exposed, BushCo successfully morphed past that by substituting the "bringing freedom and democracy" to Iraq goal in its place.  Until we fully expose this lie, the public will still be driven by a need for "victory."  Until that false bubble is popped, Americans will be reluctant to give up the cause and hand Iraq back over to the Iraqis.  

    HR 508 pierces through the deceptions and deals with the realities of what needs to be accomplished for a responsible disengagement.  It's the only resolution I've seen that sets down provisions for stability in the country and the region.  If enacted, it will actually do more to restore some degree of respect among the inhabitants of Iraq who have justifiably turned against the predatory occupiers we have become.  If there are any seeds of democracy left in the hearts of the Iraqi people, we need to hand their country back over to them so that they can grow those seeds, untainted by our dominance and predatory economic pillaging.

  •  My concern on this thread is the lack of (0+ / 0-)

    accord on the US departure from Iraq. We are very far from any consesus. We all appear to want out of Iraq, but in varying ways with varying timelines, and with a definite difference of opinion on any American presence for reconstruction.

    "We bought it we broke it" can only go so far. It must be determined what should and can be allocated for Iraq reconstruction and who is going to do it. Will more Halliburton and Lockheed Martin contracts rebuild Iraq, or will we fund a UN or NATO effort? Or can a league of Arab nations assemble and assist with our help funding the effort?

    This thread reveals many issues around our Iraq departure and little agreement on solutions. The concerns stated with your approach, Representative Woolsey, such as protecting Kurdistan's autonomy, are valid and need addressing.

    I can understand why, perhaps, you didn't comment on this thread. It's pretty divided. I would appreciate it if you would address some of the concerns raised and reassure us that funding an Iraq withdrawal won't just provide Bush with further funds with which to wage war.

    When all is said and done, it is likely more will be said than done. Harry Truman

    by 4Freedom on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:33:09 PM PST

  •  Dear Rep. Woolsey... (0+ / 0-)

    ...Give Mister Bush a choice: Withdraw from Iraq and stop his "Cut & Run" from Osama bin Laden or face the following charges:

    ...Count One: Dereliction of Duty to wit: For failing to kill or capture the Architect of the 9/11 attacks and the Commander-in-Chief of al-Qaeda forces who declared war against the United States, namely one Osama bin Laden.

    ...Count Two: Dereliction of Duty to wit: For allowing the escape of one Osama bin Laden from the battlefield at Tora Bora, when United States forces had him cornered and could have destroyed the Commander-in-Chief of al-Qaeda.

    ...Count Three: Dereliction of Duty to wit: For dividing and/or redeploying American forces in the face of the enemy in Afghanistan, and opening a new front in the GWOT by invading the sovereign nation of Iraq, who was at that time at peace with the United States of America, thus jeopardizing the over-all mission of killing or capturing the Architect of the 9/11 attacks and the Commander-in-Chief of al-Qaeda.

    Don't tell me there's not enough votes to do it.
    Isn't there anyone in Congress who knows what a "privileged motion" is? It only takes someone with the guts to oppose this Decider, one person with courage to make Mister Bush obey the will of the people. Why will it not be you?

    Madam Speaker, I move a privileged motion before the House. I move the impeachment of the President of the United States, one George Walker Bush, for the following high crimes and misdemeanors, to wit:
    1-Dereliction of duty (as stated above).
    2-Endangering the national security of the U.S. by failing to kill the Architect of the 9/11 attacks and the Commander-in-Chief of al-Qaeda, one Osama bin Laden.
    3-For committing the crime of "Aggressive War" by his Doctrine of Pre-emption under the Nuremberg Protocols, against a sovereign nation that posed no threat and never attacked us.
    4-For committing war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Geneva Conventions under the "Rules for Occupying Powers" for killing over 670,000 Iraqis, creating over one million refugees, bombing their cities and towns thus destroying their nation, and for torturing and imprisoning their citizens.

    And these are just the beginning of the list of egregious offenses that Mister Bush has committed against our Constitution, our People, our Republic, and all of humanity.

    Change the course--change the Captain. Change the crew. But save the ship!

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:18:19 PM PST

  •  Power to the People (0+ / 0-)

    thanks for representing us as you have
    sworn to do.

    Who cares what those little dictators in
    Washington think - how dare them call
    the majority of the people in this country
    traitors -  they act like fascists.

    You are doing the right thing - thank you

  •  Thank you!! You represent most Americans. (0+ / 0-)

    It's tragic that the House and Senate majority "leaders" won't put your bills to public debate and vote on them.  It will go down in history as their shame.  In that respect, it's as bad or worse than when Republicans were in power.  Key Democrats are betraying their constituents and their country.

    But not you.

    You, Barbara Lee (great to see her on HuffPo today) Maxine and Dennis - please keep it up.  America is with you.

    How can we help the Progressive Caucus?

Leslie in CA, Malacandra, Chris Bowers, Bob Johnson, wozzle, selise, Ed in Montana, stevelu, Alma, tmo, TXdem, Maccabee, JR, coral, jillian, pb, Night Owl, Lcohen, Phoenix Woman, Odysseus, taylormattd, eugene, ogre, raatz, Fran for Dean, SarahLee, ks, NYCee, gogol, joejoejoe, Joan McCarter, Nina Katarina, Rolfyboy6, gaspare, whataboutbob, jaysea, JTML, lebowski, littlesky, Shockwave, jabb, wu ming, maracucho, cotterperson, Arlyn, shayera, darrelplant, polecat, Raven Brooks, caliberal, theran, bethcf4p, bumblebums, givmeliberty, aybayb, silence, Vitarai, ralphie, memberofthejury, shermanesq, fwiffo, rwsab, bronte17, landrew, rktect, macdust, linnie, understandinglife, maxschell, Loquatrix, PsiFighter37, peace voter, highacidity, CalNM, cosmic debris, Patricia Taylor, cookiebear, Transmission, naufragus, AaronS, roses, peraspera, lorax, Miss Blue, MJB, ornerydad, Jesterfox, splashy, David Boyle, Cedwyn, Alna Dem, hhex65, Barbara Morrill, Ryvr, sockpuppet, TexDem, heartofblue, by foot, AskQuestions, brainwave, Nina, exiledfromTN, Black Maned Pensator, bittergirl, joliberal, Catte Nappe, lcrp, porsupah, Brian82, crumb, Hail Ripley, Bluebirder, TheJohnny, fugue, djtyg, side pocket, mungley, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, kd texan, tipsymcstagger, snowbird42, jim bow, TekBoss, Shapeshifter, Limelite, greeseyparrot, Gowrie Gal, rapala, nehark, vcmvo2, Skennet Boch, davidincleveland, humphrey, Bluesee, LarisaW, Alice Marshall, Cook, OpherGopher, PBen, Militarytracy, JoMo DemKim, Alien Abductee, JohnB47, Webster, panicbean, Valtin, juliesie, robolywa, Gary Norton, reflectionsv37, boofdah, suskind, romperstomper, Chaoslillith, curtadams, majcmb1, Sara R, GTPinNJ, GreyHawk, annefrank, illyia, lasky57, Yamara, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, algebrateacher, bayside, wiscmass, deepsouthdoug, sandmancan, phriendlyjaime, JanL, empathy, mightymouse, dancewater, simplicio, Asinus Asinum Fricat, coffeeinamrica, begone, skywriter, makeitstop, tjhunter1234, Denny in Seattle, jimraff, LeftOverAmerica, kovie, zot23, trashablanca, Sanuk, danmac, Thundergod, Nightprowlkitty, kraant, tarheelblue, Keone Michaels, SFJen, MuffledDrum, vigilant meerkat, adios, BlueInARedState, Russgirl, Krush, Ellicatt, cookseytalbott, buhdydharma, KenBee, The Wizard, withthelidoff, Esjaydee, Wary, Albatross, donnas, blueoasis, Brudaimonia, SherriG, Flippant to the Last, TalkieToaster, UEtech, imabluemerkin, NearlyNormal, wolverine 06, CTLiberal, Rusty1776, gabriella, MBNYC, 5x5, ilyana, Stripe, Dreaming of Better Days, kurt, scoff0165, chgobob, DanC, kurious, bstotts, Snarcalita, duha, Temmoku, slksfca, Grannus, Aaa T Tudeattack, AntKat, DBunn, we are 138, bigchin, jimijam, One Pissed Off Liberal, old wobbly, Abraham Running For Congress When I Turn 25, jennyjem, feline, peagreen, Tailspinterry, godislove, uniongal, Positronicus, edsbrooklyn, wgartist, Ninepatch, bearian, RosyFinch, todd in salt lake, Rex Manning, artisan, jhop7, Big Tent Democrat, PrgrsvArchitect, ImpeachKingBushII, JML9999, Zydekos, JerseyGirl226, arkansasblue, keikekaze, donkeywonk, TomP, Winter Rabbit, mistletoe, davewill, berkeleymike, LightningMan, ferment, dragoneyes, wayoutinthestix, WarCriminalGeorge, Unique Material, Cat Servant, Prairie Populist, we be jamming

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site