The Triad

Last Sunday, at the Riverside Church, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once eloquently opposed the Vietnam War, Presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards urged Congress to deny funding to President Bush's escalation in Iraq: "If you're in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel. Speak out, and stop this escalation now. You have the power to prohibit the president from spending any money to escalate the war – use it."

Yesterday, on Capitol Hill, three Congresswomen not only spoke out powerfully on the issue of escalation, but also – with characteristic leadership, courage and determination – laid out a principled alternative to the Bush Way Forward into continuing human catastrophe. And, at this critical moment, it offers all citizens who care about peace the opportunity to rally around a single, rational proposal for withdrawal.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey stood with fellow Congressional Progressive Caucus co-Chair, Rep. Barbara Lee, and the Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, Rep. Maxine Waters, to introduce the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act.

"We are a triad to be dealt with," Rep. Woolsey said. "And we will be heard from."

The three Representatives outlined the first bill to comprehensively lay out the cost and framework for a withdrawal from Iraq. It calls for bringing the troops home within six months of enactment and describes in detail US involvement to help stabilize Iraq following withdrawal. It accelerates the training of a permanent Iraqi security force during the six month transition and provides funding as necessary to ensure the safety of the troops and contractors during withdrawal. It also authorizes – if requested by the Iraqi government – US support for an international stabilization force. Finally, it guarantees full health care funding – including mental health benefits – as our veterans deserve. And it does all of this for pennies on the dollar compared to continuing the occupation which is draining the nation of needed resources.

"This will be the centerpiece of advocacy for all of the peace groups that will converge on Washington on January 27," Rep. Waters said.

Rep. Woolsey added, "President Bush may not want to listen to the American people, but they are going to be here in the streets of Washington, DC and in the halls of Congress toward the end of the month."

All three Congresswomen cited the President and Tony Snow's challenge to come up with an alternative to the Bush plan – which, as Rep. Lee noted – is opposed by the American people, members of Congress, and the President's own former military advisors.

"They have said that the critics of escalation have a responsibility to offer an alternative, so here we are," Rep. Lee said. "And the word has to get out that there is an alternative. Yes, the administration and the President made a mess out of this war – it's illegal, it's immoral, it's wrong – and if they don't know how to bring our troops home and end it, well, we have some very concrete, practical, realistic suggestions."

"They are saying if you have a better plan come up with it," Rep. Waters said. "First of all, it is absolutely unthinkable that this President who led us into war under false pretenses, misleading information, distorted information… would now try to put the responsibility on someone else's shoulders to stop it. But we're up to it. Because we never believed in this war. We all voted against this war. And we are committed to ending this war."

Rep. Woolsey – who as Rep. Lee pointed out was the first member of Congress to introduce a plan for withdrawal – also reflected on their shared determination to stop the Bush administration's war: "When the three of us voted against going into Iraq in the first place we were considered anti-American, virtually. We were so criticized. And now the American people are with us, and Congress is lagging behind the American people and must catch up with them."

Rep. Woolsey said the bill now has 16 original co-sponsors and she is confident that it will gain further momentum as representatives continue to hear from their constituents and the co-sponsors press to recruit their colleagues.

Rep. Waters, too, believes that the "well thought through" plan will attract support – in the streets and then the suites of Congress. "Many of our new members were elected, and some old members re-elected, because of our commitment to end this unconscionable and immoral war in Iraq," she said.

"It's time to support the troops in a real way, and that's by bringing them home – bringing them out of harms way," Rep. Lee said. "Remove them from being the targets of a violent civil war. And then we can move forward as the legislation proposes to engage in regional stability efforts, reconstruction efforts, and diplomatic efforts."

You want to see real courage, leadership and seriousness of purpose in the Democratic party? You want to celebrate women who are excelling in positions of power (while the mainstream media obsesses over the Boxer-Rice exchange)? Look no further than the Triad.

And then read their plan. Come to Washington on January 27. And work to bring our troops home.

Comments (29)

1. You know their goal is great, BUT....

   wouldn't it be a WEE bit more important if one of the members of "the Triad" was....

   Nancy Pelosi?!??!?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 10:56am

2. obviously it would be great if pelosi were a co-sponsor...but perhaps one should wait to see if/how she responds. and I wouldn't say it would be "more important" if she were a member of the Triad.... especially since the American people are largely just looking for courageous leaders who will speak clearly to them and take principled positions.... (like McCain used to)..... also, Pelosi used to be a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus but now her job is to lead the WHOLE democratic caucus -- so it's not surprising that she wouldn't be a part of this (or any other) Triad.

   Posted by italiano at 01/18/2007 @ 11:21am

3. Hagel may have trouble winning his seat in Nebraska.

   Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 12:12pm

4. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 12:12am

   John, is Sam Brownback in trouble in Kansas, too? Is that why he's opposing "the Surge"?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 12:58pm

5. but perhaps one should wait to see if/how she responds

   Posted by ITALIANO 01/18/2007 @ 11:21am

   I think Pelosi has ALREADY responded, ITAL....she's calling for a "symbolic vote".

   Whoop-pee!

   Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 1:00pm

6. I really can't support this Democrat plan to escalate the war. Withdrawing our troops will increase the bloodshed. Iran and Syria will increase their presence in Iraq. The Saudis will back the Sunnis. The Turks will start a war with the Kurds. The withdrawal of U.S. troops will cause a wider regional war. Is this what the Democrats are really after? Do they want a wider regional war so the U.S. can go back in to take over the whole Middle East and take the Oil? Why don't we hear from the Democrats about what will happen in the region if we withdraw?

   Posted by abell12ct at 01/18/2007 @ 1:09pm

7. I don't think Brownback is in trouble...Hagel has had some trouble in Nebraska and his "independent image" doesn't wash...many here see him trying to be the next McCain at our expence...That is not what hne runs on when he campaigns here...once he wins he changes his spots..again, can't commennt on Brownback...my point is Hagels problems began bhere long before this latest PR move by him.

   Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 1:13pm

8. "Why don't we hear from the Democrats about what will happen in the region if we withdraw?

   Posted by ABELL12CT 01/18/2007 @ 1:09pm | ignore this person "

   They have if you read here long enough..

   The position here is the problem in the ME IS the US..period...they KNOW FOR SURE, that when we leave and Bush is out of office, then the world will return to peace.....and all parties in the ME will be forgiven snd flowers will grow. The Iraqis will get along, pump the oil and be glad the criminals in the US are gone...and we will apologize and send reparations for the damage we have done and 2 million I am sure we will have murdered by then....imperialists, of course, whose job in life is to make Bush, Cheney, OIL companys and their friends richer.

   Read the Zeros and the FROMDEATH posts...

   Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 1:19pm

9. ".they KNOW FOR SURE, that when we leave and Bush is out of office, then the world will return to peace.....and all parties in the ME will be forgiven snd flowers will grow."

   funny, that's just what Bush told us would happen once Iraq is invaded and "given" freedom and democracy. we all know how that's going. the consequences of an invasion were not unpredictable, in fact many people predicted the disaster unfolding there.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 1:30pm

10. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2007 @ 1:13pm

    That's my question, John. Why is Hagel's opposition a "PR move", but not Brownback.

    Brownback is the "conservative's conservative". He won his re-election by 69% of the vote.

    If Bush has lost him, the charge can't be "Oh, Hagel's just trying to keep his seat" or "Olympia Snowe is a RINO".

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 1:31pm

11. "I really can't support this Democrat plan to escalate the war. Withdrawing our troops will increase the bloodshed."

    removing troops is escalation? removing US troops will mean they will not kill any Iraqis, it means no Iraqis will kill americans. the civil war has been escalating immensely since we have made war there. it defies credulity to believe our leaving will make things worse. we are already in a worse case scenario there.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 1:33pm

12. funny, that's just what Bush told us would happen once Iraq is invaded and "given" freedom and democracy. we all know how that's going. the consequences of an invasion were not unpredictable, in fact many people predicted the disaster unfolding there. -JR

    Do you not suspect that many neocons believe in the theory of creating order from chaos? Their little conflagration is really starting to heat up, which is actually probably good news to many planners.

    Posted by chimichenga at 01/18/2007 @ 1:48pm

13. "If Bush has lost him, the charge can't be "Oh, Hagel's just trying to keep his seat" or "Olympia Snowe is a RINO"

    I agree...

    I am only refering to Hagel...he was always a Hagel man and not a conservative or a Bush man, or a Nebraska man...hence, he has some trouble,,,his trouble is becasue of himself, not Bush .

    Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2007 @ 1:50pm

14. Gosh, Maasch, Nebraska politics is certainly fascinating.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 1:53pm

15. I really can't support this Democrat plan to escalate the war. Withdrawing our troops will increase the bloodshed. Iran and Syria will increase their presence in Iraq. The Saudis will back the Sunnis. The Turks will start a war with the Kurds. The withdrawal of U.S. troops will cause a wider regional war. Is this what the Democrats are really after?

    Posted by ABELL12CT 01/18/2007 @ 1:09pm

    Maybe so. That would explain why most of them voted FOR the Republican plan to invade Iraq rather than vote AGAINST it.

    One thing is certain, though. I want my taxes to stop supporting your murder spree.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 2:15pm

16. and speaking of the great evil of iran's "very negative" activity in the Middle East ... according to the BBC today, back in 2003, Iran actually offered to help ... and they were snubbed by the White House!

    Posted by ZERO 01/18/2007 @ 2:10pm

    Completely logical if the objective is not peace and security but total conquest and domination. Look at the deal that israel turned it's back on:

    The main points of the understandings are as follows:

    An agreement of principles will be signed between the two countries, and following the fulfillment of all commitments, a peace agreement will be signed.

    As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years.

    At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval.

    Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret.

    The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel's favor.

    According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran.

    ```````````````````

    The contacts ended after the Syrians demanded an end to meetings on an unofficial level and called for a secret meeting at the level of deputy minister, on the Syrian side, with an Israeli official at the rank of a ministry's director general, including the participation of a senior American official. Israel did not agree to this Syrian request.

    http://www.tinyurl.com/39amfl

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/18/2007 @ 2:49pm

17. Maybe so. That would explain why most of them voted FOR the Republican plan to invade Iraq rather than vote AGAINST it.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/18/2007 @ 2:15pm

    See, this is FRB-Beta. FRB-Alpha is the one who whoops and hollers about how great it is that the Democrats took Congress and I lost!

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 2:49pm

18. I think Pelosi has ALREADY responded, ITAL....she's calling for a "symbolic vote".

    Posted by MASK 01/18/2007 @ 1:00pm

    MASK, I still think you are jumping the gun to conclude that she will reject this legislation. the symbolic vote is just a quick, easy, first step.... let's see if there is a next step -- and hopefully soon!

    Posted by italiano at 01/18/2007 @ 3:07pm

19. Posted by ITALIANO 01/18/2007 @ 3:07pm

    Oh sure, it's possible. Of course maybe instead of doing a "a quick, easy, first step"....Granny Nanny did a "long, hard, IMPORTANT step" and actually called Bush out on "the Surge", I'd be a little more confident.

    Is it possible that Pelosi and Reid will see the 60-70% disapprovals for more troops and nearly equal numbers for immediate withdrawal in mid-February and put a time-limit on the defense appropriations bills....sure, possible.

    Here's the thing though...there WILL be some Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly talk of "Dems taking the bullets and FOOD from our brave guys and gals in Baghdad"....ugly, false stuff...but out there none the less.

    Would Nan and Hare hold fast into the Spring....or knuckle under and maybe endorse the Hillary "cap it, don't end it" policy???

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 3:34pm

20. the symbolic vote is a "let's run it up the flag pole and see who salutes" kind of thing. the politicians will see how their constituents respond. that in turn will lead to votes with teeth.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 4:05pm

21. I really can't support this Democrat plan to escalate the war. Withdrawing our troops will increase the bloodshed. Iran and Syria will increase their presence in Iraq. The Saudis will back the Sunnis. The Turks will start a war with the Kurds. The withdrawal of U.S. troops will cause a wider regional war. Is this what the Democrats are really after? Do they want a wider regional war so the U.S. can go back in to take over the whole Middle East and take the Oil? Why don't we hear from the Democrats about what will happen in the region if we withdraw?

    I'm surprised you aren't afraid to get out of bed in the morning. Doom! Fear! Stay the course! Beware anything that doesn't come from the Mouth of Bush! Don't be a wimp. Stand up for what's right. Over 600,000 dead Iraqis cry out for an end to the Culture of Death.

    Posted by jlsolley at 01/18/2007 @ 4:08pm

22. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/18/2007 @ 4:05pm

    You mean they're hoping for MORE proof that 70% of Americans don't want "the Surge"...or that they don't trust Gallup, Harris, CNN, etc.?

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 4:09pm

23. What we Americans have to realize is that the Bush Iraq plan was first and foremost to create chaos because in chaos they can steal... OIL!!! And Bush & his oil buddies have done just that, thats why they turned off the meters at the Iraq oil port. But there were secondary motives as well; we have a jihad on westerners, Americans in particular. What this has done essentially is allow the dems to get credit for getting us out of this hellhole and let the muslim extremists beat the snot out of one another and keep them too busy to worry about us(a). You have the Turk's and Kurd's issue, the Shiite's and Sunni's, the Saudi-Arab's Sunni's and the Iranian Shiite's... and don't forget the India versus Pakistani issues. This whole section of the globe will be banging on each other for the next 50 or 60 years which will at least give us a chance to catch our breath, find some alternative fuel sources and rebuild our economy and our security. This will ensure that by the time they decide they're still pissed at us(a), we will be prepared to tell them to take their dirty oil and shove it where the sun don't shine!! Add this segment to the Triads plan for success and we have an outcome that ensures our safety for a the next generation or two. Peace be with you all.

    Posted by snowdude38 at 01/19/2007 @ 2:55pm

24. Posted this [uncyclopedia.org] on Mr Nichols'. Should go here of course.

    Posted by Mask at 01/19/2007 @ 4:20pm

25. Except for a few pols like Woolsey, Waters and Lee it's the Chicken Dems vs. the Chickenhawks! The American people have spoken. It's time to get out of Iraq. Why don't the other Dems understand?

    Posted by John Earl at 01/19/2007 @ 5:35pm

26. Oh, the unctuous oleaginousness of the "wise user" lawyers/traitors artfully evading and dissembling to avoid doing "the right thing" (orderly withdrawing) because the cash cow of crude oil is still the "tail wagging the dog."

    Kudos to the Triad and thanks, in advance, for those true patriotic dissenters attending/participating in D.C. on 1/27.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/20/2007 @ 08:06am

27. The people of America are in need of its leaders to stand up and unite the country. Attacking Nancy Pelosi will not get the job done. Convincing other representatives will.

    The argument of continued funding of the occupation of Iraq is not whether to support our troops or not. The argument is whether or not we can stop the destruction of American Democracy or not.

    The Bush administration usurped the powers of a divided Congress to engage in a Middle Eastern adventure conceived in the 1990's. We now all know that the war on Iraq had nothing to do with a war on terror. Coupled with the destruction of The Bill of Rights, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and so much more, this is a ‘War On America.' While Bush has lost direct control over Congress, he has not yet lost his ability to push his agenda.

    Only Congress has the power to bring America back from the brink of disaster. But it cannot do this on its own. A national mobilization is required to give them the strength to act. Millions of individual letter writers have not been able to turn the tide. What is required is for our national figures to step forward in unity, to be patriots, and put their nation first.

    This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is about all Americans. We as a nation have been betrayed. Now is the time to act, now that this abuser of power has tripped. Our constitutional democracy is at stake.

    Dan Monte Delegate to California Democratic Party from Woolsey's District January 20, 2007

    Posted by danmonte at 01/20/2007 @ 9:56pm

28. Great to see one of Woolsey's constituents posting here. HR 508 is the bill we want promoted, right? So, let's do it folks. HR 508, HR 508, HR 508...

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/21/2007 @ 12:40pm

29. Gonzales goofed. Thanks for pointing this out Rese. And thanks to Senator Spector for confronting/calling Attorney Gonzales on his error.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/22/2007 @ 1:11pm