Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kerry & Feingold to offer amendment with deadline to redeploy US troops

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:40 PM
Original message
Kerry & Feingold to offer amendment with deadline to redeploy US troops
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 19, 2006
CONTACTS: April Boyd, 202-224-4159
Zach Lowe, 202-224-8657

John Kerry and Russ Feingold to Offer Amendment with Deadline to Redeploy U.S. Combat Troops From Iraq

Tomorrow John Kerry, Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer will offer an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that sets a deadline of July 1, 2007, for U.S. troops to be redeployed out of Iraq, for purposes of strengthening U.S. national security and increasing the Iraqis’ ability to establish stability throughout their country.

Below is a joint statement from John Kerry and Russ Feingold:

“For three years, Congress has played political games while the war in Iraq has gone on unchecked and unending. With the administration’s failure to offer a coherent or effective strategy in Iraq, it is long past time for Congress to offer a plan to redeploy our troops so we can give Iraq its best chance at stability, and refocus on al Qaeda and the terrorist networks that threaten the security of all Americans.

“We must redeploy to succeed – and we will put this national security imperative to a test in the United States Senate this week. We need a deadline for the redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. A deadline gives Iraqis the best chance for stability and self-government, and most importantly, it allows us to begin refocusing on the true threats that face our country.

“Our amendment recognizes the need to keep an over-the-horizon military presence in the Middle East to fight al Qaeda and its affiliates and protect regional security interests. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations and protecting U.S. facilities and personnel should remain inside Iraq. The president also must move immediately to work with the Iraqis to convene a summit of Iraq’s neighbors and the international community to forge a lasting political settlement to give all Iraqis a stake in the new Iraq.

“A strong national security policy begins with recognizing that our massive presence in Iraq weakens our security and gives Iraqi politicians a crutch to avoid creating stability in their country. As long as 130,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq indefinitely, that country will remain what a series of mistakes have made it -- a crucible for the recruitment and development of terrorists determined to fight Americans and an obstacle to an Iraqi government capable of governing and securing its country. Our troops have done their job in Iraq. It is time to redeploy – to help increase stability in Iraq, and more importantly, to strengthen the national security of the United States.”

The goal of the Kerry-Feingold plan is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing a political settlement and the redeployment of American forces. Their plan calls requires:

  • The redeployment of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007.


  • Only U.S. troops essential to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities would remain. President Bush has repeatedly said that when Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. However, that has not been happening. So far, the Iraqis have trained 265,600 security forces – just 7,000 shy of the Bush administration’s stated goal of 272,566. Yet just a few weeks ago, the Pentagon announced that they are sending 3,500 additional U.S. troops from Kuwait to Iraq.


  • The United States to maintain an over-the-horizon military presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests. /li]

  • The President to work with the new Iraqi government to convene a summit that includes those leaders, the leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to reach a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that addresses fundamental issues including federalism, oil revenues, the militias, security guarantees, reconstruction, economic assistance and border security.


  • The Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on how U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by July 1, 2007.



# # #




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. They work well together
Could do it in 2008......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Finally, someone says to bring in leaders from other countries in the area
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. actually, JK said that during the campaign and again
in his Oct. withdrawal plan, and again last March.

The problem is the corpmedia who refuses to give airtime to discuss all these issues in any detail.

Hopefully, with other voices working with him, they can be LOUDER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. United we stand
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yes! The respected, heavy hitters are comin' out swinging! A
tag team? I love it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
30. Yup! Excellent! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Ah, my favorites.
And one of them is my Senator. Hee.

Good for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. I am so glad about this - it means we'll have more than just
Kerry and Murtha taking all the heat. I am so glad that Russ and Boxer, too, are going to stand with them on this. We need all the voices we can get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. See, you don't have to attack Feingold to support Kerry guys.
Edited on Mon Jun-19-06 03:49 PM by jsamuel
And I am a little disappointed some did :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Aye, but neither does it matter now who was first and who was second
in calling for an end to the war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. That is disappointing indeed cause it
also causes acrimony for their candidate.. I don't care who brings them home, just please do it and you will have my vote...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Wanting Feingold to stand with other Dems on tough battles is not an
Edited on Mon Jun-19-06 04:00 PM by blm
attack. It's sound advice.

He knows now how tough it is when you try to attempt a tough battle on your own - with this GOP controlled media, it's best to stand together with likeminded allies. Lesson learned, I'd say. Be glad for it. Cuz Kerry will always get his back when censure debate is revisited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. "Wanting Feingold to stand with other Dems on tough battles"
what are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Just responding to what you said in your post.
Big difference between attacking Feingold and pointing out that he needs to work with likeminded Dems and risk sticking his neck out along with them.

That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. ok... is there a particular instance where Feingold did not "work with
likeminded Dems and risk sticking his neck out" that you are talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yes. If you are up on what Kerry supporters have been saying it would
come as no surprise to you.. But, you apparently feel it was attacking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. could you link or say what it was?
Edited on Mon Jun-19-06 06:16 PM by jsamuel
it seems that you are talking about something different than what I was talking about

I was talking about attacking Feingold for voting against the Iraq War Res.

Please tell me what you were talking about because I don't think he has done what you have accused him of, unless you can provide proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Why would anyone attack Feingold for voting against the IWR?
Edited on Mon Jun-19-06 06:25 PM by blm
Most Kerry supporters I have seen are fine that other senators voted against the IWR, but also understand that Kerry's vote for IWR was always in the context of his longtime commitment to getting weapons inspectors and diplomatic efforts going again, something he worked on since 1998.

The fight was with those who mischaracterize Kerry's vote as if he decided for the first time in his career to be politically expedient. No one familiar with his record and especially with his longterm views of Iraq would say he was anything but consistent. We resent the blame as if the IWR is what took tis country to war - it did not - as Bush intended to violate ANY resolution to have his war, something which was proven with the Downing Street Memos were revealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. I don't remember the OP ever doing that. So I dont see your point.\nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R this one too.
rox63, you've got a dupe I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blaukraut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. This is wonderful news!
The Three Musketeers are coming through. Hillary Clinton? Go sit yo' ass down!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. Excellent! No more excuses! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
14. can you imagine the "signing statement" if such an amendment...
Edited on Mon Jun-19-06 04:24 PM by mike_c
...were to actually pass? "Yeah, ok, but..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
15. Good
Now the rest of the Senators who "voted against the war" need to stand with this, along with the ones who have said their vote was wrong or any other utterance against the war. Otherwise, I'll consider them Lieberman war supporters.

I don't fully like this amendment, but it's a step in the right direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
21. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
22. excellent. There are still a few great ones in washington.
If this were put to a popular American vote, it would surely win.
And any democrat who does not sign on to this amendment better watch out....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
25. K&R
Now where are all those Dems that voted against the IWR. Are they going to fall for the Rovian "cut and run" talking point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
27. Thanks, rox. I am happy to see that they were able to join forces
Edited on Mon Jun-19-06 08:25 PM by Mass
to support something important. Kudos to the three of them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blaukraut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-19-06 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
28. kicked
You'd think this thread would be on top of the first page, considering everybody here wants the troops out. People, call your senators and urge them to support this amendment!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 05:42 AM
Response to Original message
29. July 1, 2007 is one year away. One year to exit! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
31. I thought Kerry's plan was to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2006. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. he modified it. after zaqawi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC