Can't fault a man for playing to his base:
Posted on 07/19/2007 3:56:12 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Seventy House members, nearly all liberal Democrats, vowed today that they would not support any more funding for Iraq military operations unless tied to a complete withdrawal of combat troops.
This is a big development. Earlier this year, liberals grudgingly voted for Iraq funding bills because they didn't want to give Nancy Pelosi a defeat. Now it seems that their patience has run out.
The next Iraq funding bill won't come up until the fall, so this showdown won't happen for a few months, but it appears to be shaping up as an epic battle between liberals in Congress and President Bush. This may be the beginning of the end for the Iraq War.
The liberals' full letter to Bush appears after the jump ...
We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA); Rep. Barbara Lee (CA); Rep. Maxine Waters (CA); Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA); Rep. Rush Holt (NJ); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY); Rep. Diane Watson (CA); Rep. Ed Pastor (AZ); Rep. Barney Frank (MA); Rep. Danny Davis (IL); Rep. John Conyers (MI); Rep. John Hall (NY); Rep. Bob Filner (CA); Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY); Rep. Bobby Rush (IL); Rep. Charles Rangel (NY); Rep. Ed Towns (NY); Rep. Paul Hodes (NH); Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO); Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR); Rep. Albert Wynn (MD); Rep. Bill Delahunt (MA); Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Rep. G. K. Butterfield (NC); Rep. Hilda Solis (CA); Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY); Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY); Rep. Michael Honda (CA); Rep. Steve Cohen (TN); Rep. Phil Hare (IL); Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (CA); Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL); Rep. James McGovern (MA); Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH); Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL); Rep. Julia Carson (IN); Rep. Linda Sanchez (CA); Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ); Rep. John Olver (MA); Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX); Rep. Jim McDermott (WA); Rep. Ed Markey (MA); Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA); Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ); Rep. Rubin Hinojosa (TX); Rep. Pete Stark (CA); Rep. Bobby Scott (VA); Rep. Jim Moran (VA); Rep. Betty McCollum (MN); Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN); Rep. Diana DeGette (CO); Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA); Rep. Artur Davis (AL); Rep. Hank Johnson (GA); Rep. Donald Payne (NJ); Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO); Rep. John Lewis (GA); Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY); Rep. Neil Abercrombie (HI); Rep. Gwen Moore (WI); Rep. Keith Ellison (MN); Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI); Rep. Donna Christensen (USVI); Rep. David Scott (GA); Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL); Lois Capps (CA); Steve Rothman (NJ); Elijah Cummings (MD); and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
Action must be taken now.
Doesn’t this bill now contain a provision that makes preaching against homosexuality in the pulpit of the church a hate crime?
I should follow up to say that, if that is indeed the case, it would be enough to completely change my support of the bill.
Thanks for the post, list of names. Thanks to Josephine Hearn at The Politico.
Then President Bush can just veto the budget bills and effectively shutdown the government then get the money from the treasury as certified by the AG as “essential” funding.
I don’t think there is a bill yet. These liberals are pledging to vote against any future bill for troop funding.
How many house members are there? 435?
LMAO. Dude, Ron Paul is not a RINO. Disagree with his stand on Iraq, but don't call him a RINO.
Can't fault a man for playing to his base:
He is a RINO because he is a libertarian posing in republican clothing. Soon to be an ex-congressman after he loses badly in his race to the whitehouse. Ron Paul will be targeted by the GOP, and he should.
They see the surge is working and want to nip that in the bud.
Joining with Barney Frank, Keith Ellison and Barbara Lee (among other leftists) on foreign policy issues makes one a RINO.
You were right. Ron Paul is a RINO. He is a LIBERTARIAN posing in Republican clothing to get elected to Congress. Paul stands no chances of winning the POTUS and his days as a congressman are numbered. Ron Paul will not win reelection as a congressman in his district. He will be a large target for Texas GOP.
Good. Let them show their true face to the American people. Thanks for handin’ us ‘08, fellas!
“I don’t think there is a bill yet. These liberals are pledging to vote against any future bill for troop funding.”
OK...I had read somewhere that Kennedy was trying to get that “hate crimes” thing in the bill.
Only 70 Democrat members of the House won’t vote for more Iraq War funding? Does that mean that other 100+ members will vote to continue funding the war. If so, that looks bad for Pelosi. Rush continues to claim that House Democrats are split on the war...based on this, he might be right.
no, because he percieves our deployment there as unconstitutional. he looks at these things from a solid conservative viewpoint. it is possible to be “conservative” and against an interventionist foreign policy.
In fact, in the old days, our invasion and occupation of Iraq would be seen as internationalist do-gooder liberal nonsense by the political conservatives of the day (pre-FDR conservatives)
Why would anyone consider a Libertard like Ron Paulson??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Well, he isn’t a conservative. He’s a libertarian and used to be a Libertarian.
And since Goldwater the Republican Party has favored an interventionist foreign policy. Going back to the days of Taft and the America First Committee is neither realistic nor plausible for a post-9/11 world.
Who would have thought the moonbats could be so sneaky >/s
I am a few districts over from Ron Paul’s district. I know the area very well and those Texans in those parts have a) never knew his real stance, b) will not vote for this clown again.
He used to be a Libertarian and now he is running as a Republican. He is more in line with dems on foreign policy. Label him as you wish - he's a rules-based idiot.
Just to follow up on my last reply to you. Ron Paul is having his “Sheehan Moment” of 15 minutes of fame. He’ll be toast with is constituency.
;) I have a large family presence in the south Houston area. That is what I am hearing too. He flew under the radar for so long and now is being exposed. He will not be reelected.
;) You are spot on.
Ron Paul is not a Rhino. He is just a kook. You Young Republican whippersnappers have no idea what Rino is. Why when I was you age just the Senate in the 60’s and the 70’s had-Brook-Mass. Wiecker-CT, Schweicker-Pa, Case-NY, Goodell-NY,Mathias-Md, Boggs-De. also Percy-Il, Cooper-Ky, Pearson-KS,Hatfield-Or,Kuchel-Ca,Stafford-Vt. Now those were Rino’s. I don’t think any of the Rino’s (not even Spector)could even begin to compare to the Rino’s I had in my day.
how many more countries will we have to send troops into before we are safe?
Those who embolden the enemy to fight harder should be hung.
You belong with weak kneed whimps.
Ron Paul is a shining example of why I am no longer a libertarian.
Actually he is not even a rino, he is a lefty and a buffoon
Ron Paul is a disgrace. Saying you will not fund our troops on the battlefield is beyond the pale.
So his pro-life, pro-border security, and pro-gun stands are fake then huh
All of this would be moot had the administration fought a real WOT instead of the current political-correct/nation-building war it's conducting now.
That's a lie.
Why do you guys always have to resort to smears and lies about Paul?
Iraq's PM Nouri Maliki has shrugged off criticism of his government's political progress, saying delays in the face of such violence were "fairly natural".He said "international interference" was partly to blame and called for more time to reach Washington's benchmarks.
In his first public comments since the US released its interim report on Iraq, he said Iraqi forces were ready to take over security if US-led troops left.
President George W Bush also called for his plans to be given more time.
In his weekly radio address, Mr Bush said that the last contingent of the 30,000 troops extra troops deployed in Iraq under his so-called surge strategy had only just arrived and needed time to carry out their mission.
"The best way to start bringing these good men and women home is to make sure the surge succeeds," Mr Bush said.
...
Despite the ongoing unrest, Mr Maliki said he had "full confidence" Iraqis could take responsibility for security, even if "international forces withdraw at any time they want".
However, he did say Iraqi forces needed additional training and equipment to be ready in case of a withdrawal.
BBC NEWS - PM Maliki defends Iraq progress
You're right, call him the disgusting POS that he is.
Nonsense.
They're members of Congress who are (finally) doing what they're supposed to do. Cutting off the funding for a war they believe is wrong is precisely the role of Congress. That, and declaring war to begin with, is their role to play in wartime.
I'd much rather they followed that role, rather than try to micro-manage the war, set troop rotation schedules, and some of the other nonsense they've gone through. Mind you, I disagree with them, but I also appreciate the fact that they're making their stand openly, rather than this idiotic vote-for-but-really-against it nonsense that Pelosi and so many others do.
Drew Garrett
“Seventy House members, nearly all liberal Democrats, vowed today that they would not support any more funding for Iraq military operations unless tied to a complete withdrawal of combat troops. “
So the logic is we will fund combat operations as long as we leave Iraq and refrain from combat.
Just follow the money. I bet you will find these 70 Democrats with oil futures.
Do you know much about the Texas GOP? You would not be proud to invoke them if you did.
Careful, you’ll get all the Ron Paulyps out there inflamed! lol
Since when does the delegate from the Virgin Islands (Rep. Donna Christensen-USVI) get a vote on the floor of the House? Perhaps this was not a vote? or did I miss something?
“Ron Paulyps” - LOL!
Are you pro-life, pro-border security, and pro-gun? If so, you have told me yourself you are not a republican but a libertarian. So is Ron Paul. Therefore, if he is a libertarian, whcih he is, he is NOT a republican. The tag RINO fits Ron Paul well then. He is a republican in name only.
I consider myself a conservative with libertarian tendencies. (For all her faults, Ayn Rand is still a hero to me). However,Ron Paul is a nut case, neither a libertarian nor a conservative.
Ron Paul is a member of al Qaeda.
He's far from being a RINO.
He's just a nut.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.