Timetable for Withdrawal or for Joe?

The Democratic Leadership (and I'm using the term loosely this week) has made a fatal mistake in their efforts to end the War in Iraq and bring our troops home safely.

Many Democrats, including Joe Sestak, are considering voting for the current Iraq funding bill, without timetables, enforcible benchmarks or accountability from the White House.

From the Chicago Tribune:

When Joe Sestak, a Democrat and former vice admiral in the Navy, ran for Congress last year, he told the voters of suburban Philadelphia that the United States should withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2007.

Fueled in part by the anti-war sentiments of Pennsylvania voters, Sestak defeated a 10-term Republican.

Thursday, after months of struggle with the White House, Sestak and fellow members of the House are expected to vote to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. The legislation, however, will not include a timeline to withdraw from Iraq, which until recently was a key Democratic demand. Instead, the $120 billion measure will contain "benchmarks" that the Iraqi government should meet to show progress.

Despite intense pressure from anti-war organizations, Sestak said he would vote for the measure. "The fact of the matter is we have to fund the troops," he said, shrugging off the prospect of facing political consequences. "I've had my 31-year career. This is my passion."

Your passion? Spending taxpayer dollars to fund a war that you've always called a "tragic misadventure"? Prolonging a war that you know only gets worse the more we extend it without end? The REAL fact of the matter is that we do NOT "have to fund the troops" for anything other than a safe pullout. I'll detail the things we can fund later in this piece.

Joe, you need to vote against this bill!!!

Joe campaigned on timetables for withdrawal. From Joe's own campaign website...

I firmly believe in a planned end to our military engagement in Iraq within the next year as the primary catalyst for change in Iraq. This timeline should only be extended if our military experts deem that a few more months are necessary in order to safely execute a complete withdrawal. I understand the Vietnam-like arguments that military disengagement may mean dominoes will fall, resulting in more regional strife and the further waning of U.S. credibility and power. But I counter those assertions with the real likelihood of a prolonged occupation with rising death, injury and cost for an unknown number of years. It will be an occupation that will continue to have goals that are ever changing as they remain elusive. The result will be continued loss of U.S. military and diplomatic international credibility. Polls show a growing majority Arab opinion:

1. that Iraqis are worse off than before the war;
2. that the intervention has produced less democracy in the region;
3. that, in the words of the U.S. inspector general for Iraq, corruption is “pervasive and very serious,” with more than $1 billion missing in one case;
4. that, even in cities proclaimed to be models for rebuilding Iraq, militia fighters of different religious parties clash violently and conduct assassinations, and
5. that unemployment ranges from 25 to 40 percent, even in these cities.

We must use our prompt military disengagement from Iraq to force the three major parties to understand that America has achieved its ends: (1) no weapons of mass destruction threaten us; (2) we have provided a framework for democracy; (3) we have provided resources to begin to revive their economy; and (4) a torturous dictatorship has been removed.
.....
There is a prompt way out of Iraq, and I believe that failing to do so means significantly hurting our other, more important long term interests in the world.

Joe, it's time to cast the vote you were elected to cast. Make no mistake, you and other military veterans were elected to vote to end the war. Your military service should be an innoculation against false criticism that you don't support the troops. But, so what if there is criticism? This is a matter of principle and you REALLY need to honor your campaign promises regarding timetables, hold the line, and convince as many others as possible to do the same.

Democrats in Congress MUST NOT enable Bush to continue his failed policies without Congressional oversight and approval. If we didn't want Congressional oversight, we would have voted to keep Curt Weldon.

Joe, you and the other Democrats need to keep sending funding bills to the White House that demand timetables and benchmarks. Let Bush veto them. Build more support and send another bill. Let the country see who is really looking out for the troops.


Things you can fund or de-fund:
1) Pay the contractors the SAME wages as the troops. The contractors are there voluntarily and their high pay is an insult to the underpaid troops that are forced to be there through a backdoor draft. De-fund the contractors and lets see how patriotic they really are.

2) De-fund all extensions to troop combat tours and anything that supports such extensions.

3) Bring home the National Guard troops and outlaw the use of the Guard outside the United States without a more rigorous set of conditions.

4) Fund a study on how to bring the troops home safely, or at least to pull back to Iraq's borders, as you have previously suggested.


You are part of the majority party that was swept into office to execute the will of the majority, particularly in your district. What the hell heck hell are you afraid of? This vote is a total surrender of principle and leadership.

Joe, if you cannot fulfill the primary mission of your current term, those that oppose the war may impose their own timetable against prolonging your mission into a second term.

As you said, you put in your 31 years and are in Congress as "your passion". So, your vote should match the passion you expoused on the campaign trail, or the voters should find a congressman for 2008 that shares their passion.