More Democrats Say: End the War, Restore Checks and Balances

The list of Democratic congressional candidates who are committing to back the "Responsible Plan" movement to end the war in Iraq, guard against similarly wrongheaded wars, restore Constitutional principles and reform the media is growing rapidly.

When it was announced earlier this week that the "Responsible Plan to End the War In Iraq" -- an initiative conceived by Washington state's Darcy Burner, Maine's Chellie Pingress and a handful of other progressive women seeking House seats -- would be launched today, 25 House and Senate contenders had signed on.

By the time of the actual launch, the number of signers had risen to 42, including 38 House candidates and 4 Senate contenders. The list includes candidates such as Maryland's Donna Edwards, who has already won her primary and is all-but-certain to be elected in November, as well as many leading House contenders from other states. Some like Pingree are seeking open seats, some like Burner are challenging Republican incumbents, some like Iowa's Ed Fallon are taking on disappointing Democrats -- as Edwards did when she beat Congressman Al Wynn in Maryland's February primary.

All are challenging Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to stop pulling punches, just as they are suggesting a clearer course for the party's cautious presidential contenders.

That course is outlined as:

1. Ending U.S. military action in Iraq:

There is no military solution in Iraq. Our current course unacceptably holds U.S. strategic fortunes hostage to events in Iraq that are beyond our control; we must change course. Using diplomatic, political, and economic power, we can responsibly end the war and removing all of our troops from Iraq.

2. Using U.S. diplomatic power:

Much of the remaining work to be completed in Iraq requires the effective use of diplomatic power. Many of Iraq's neighbors are currently contributing to instability and need to be persuaded to assist instead in stabilization.

3. Addressing humanitarian concerns:

The humanitarian crisis caused by Iraq's situation is destabilizing to the region and damaging to America's moral credibility. We must both take responsibility for the Iraqis who are now endangered because of their assistance to the U.S. and begin to address the regional problems of displaced Iraqis.

4. Restoring our Constitution:

Many mistakes were made in the course of this war, and our systems of checks and balances have failed us at critical moments. To prevent repeating those mistakes, we must repair the underlying Constitutional framework of our republic and provide checks to executive authority. Balance must be restored between the executive and the judicial branch (for instance through the restoration of habeas corpus), between the executive and the legislative branch (for instance through clarifying that the President does not have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally alter legislation through signing statements), and between the executive and the people of the United States (for instance by clarifying that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and a warrant for the government to spy on Americans).

5. Restoring our military:

Repairing the damage done to our military will require reforms in contracting procedures, restoring benefits for members of the military and veterans, and investment in repairing or replacing damaged military equipment.

The need for contracting reform is substantial. Private militias have direct incentives to prolong the conflict rather than resolve it; their use needs to be phased out. Contractors must be legally accountable for their actions. War profiteering must be stopped, and those who have engaged in it need to answer for their actions.

The safety of our men and women in uniform requires that we adhere to international standards with respect to treatment of prisoners. We must also make it clear that the United States does not torture, and that we do not send people to other places to be tortured, either.

The military is having substantial difficulty with recruiting and retention; we could begin to help by delivering on more of the promises the original Montgomery G.I. Bill made and by delivering on our promises regarding healthcare for veterans.

6. Restoring independence to the media:

The consolidation of our news media into the control of a relatively few corporate entities stifled a full and fair discussion and debate around Iraq. A more robust debate could be encouraged by expanding access to media.

7. Creating a new, U.S.-centered energy policy:

Finally, we are clearly tied to Iraq through our dependence on oil, which makes us vulnerable. Moving away from that dependence is necessary for strategic, economic, and environmental reasons.

The House candidates who have signed on are:

Darcy Burner, Washington

Chellie Pingree, Maine

Donna Edwards, Maryland

Eric Massa New York

Tom Perriello, Virginia

Jared Polis, Colorado

George Fearing, Washington

Larry Byrnes, Florida

Steve Harrison, New York

Sam Bennett, Pennsylvania

Harry Taylor, North Carolina

Alan Grayson, Florida

Dennis Shulman, New Jersey

Larry Grant, Idaho

Leslie Byrne, Virginia

Jim Hunt, Montana

Bill O'Neill, Ohio

Jill Derby, Nevada

Alice Kryzan, New York

Ed Fallon, Iowa

Mike Waltner, Pennsylvania

Joe Garcia, Florida

Steve Marks, Oregon

Debbie Cook, California

Don Wiviott, New Mexico

Darius Shahinfar, New York

Faye Armitage, Florida

Tom Wyka, New Jersey

Cheryl Sabel, Alabama

Timothy Cunha, Florida

Ron Shepston, California

Barry Welsh, Indiana

Gretchen Clearwater, Indiana

Roger Waun, Texas

Ellen Greenberg, New Jersey

Clint Curtis, Florida

Jane Mitakides, Ohio

Jennifer Dougherty, Maryland.

The full plan, which can be reviewed here has also been endorsed by four Senate candidates.

They are:

Jeff Merkley, Oregon

Steve Novick, Oregon

Greg Fisher, Kentucky

Bob Tuke, Tennessee.

Comments (41)

1. Again, SOUNDS great.

   But, also again, weren't we promised this in 2006???

   Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 3:52pm

2. Grant, now that was a "man of experience."----Posted by EULER 03/27/2008 @ 4:16pm

   Sorry...are you arguing against candidates who claim the mantle of "experience"?!!?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 4:41pm

3. Sounds great?

   Another attempt to force surrender on the American people.

   Declaring at the onset, the premise that we cannot win militarily as fact, really shows how much the left supports our military.

   Posted by fatboy02 at 03/27/2008 @ 4:55pm

4. Some of this is good, although the central question, withdrawal from Iraq, is typically wishy washy. Progressives should call for a prompt withdrawal from Iraq based on a timetable endorsed by both the American and Iraqi people, as consistently shown in several years' worth of polls (i.e., somewhere around a year or less).

   Also, the not so subtle "Let's blame Iran and/or Syria (that is, Iraq's neighbors)" for Iraq's instability is a standard and dishonest dodge. The U.S. presence is the fundamental problem, folks, even if Iran's machinations are not welcome, either. But let the Iraqis handle the latter, or ask for our help when we're gone. Applying "diplomatic power" as a precondition for our leaving just shirks our responsibility to leave, and leave ASAP.

   Yes, expanding access to the media would be nice. Restoring anti-trust law would help, too, and bringing back strict ownership rules - no more than 14 radio stations instead of, what , over 1,000 (!?!), and 7 TV stations rather than 40+, per owner - would also help. And satelite can't own cable can't own broadcasting can't own internet, etc., etc.. Something along those lines. In other words, be more specific (and more new media savvy then I am).

   Posted by cka2nd at 03/27/2008 @ 5:45pm

5. Declaring at the onset, the premise that we cannot win militarily as fact, really shows how much the left supports our military.

   Posted by FATBOY02 03/27/2008 @ 4:55pm

   So you're calling General Petraeus a leftist?

   Posted by yutsano at 03/27/2008 @ 7:18pm

6. Posted by EULER 03/27/2008 @ 7:09pm

   Hmm...okay. What are the other "parts" of Hillary's "package", specifically?

   Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 7:21pm

7. Hey, don't dis the General.

   Posted by USAPRIDE at 03/27/2008 @ 9:11pm

8. you mean general Betrayus?

   Posted by emile duBois at 03/27/2008 @ 9:34pm

9. Yes, expanding access to the media would be nice.

   "Pssst!!...Hey kid....come over here. THere's this thing called the internet, see. So keep it under your hat".

   Posted by Sliver at 03/27/2008 @ 9:38pm

10. Yeah whatever, if Obama has breathed

    Posted by shadow master at 03/28/2008 @ 02:14am

11. Yeah whatever, if Obama has breathed a word about any of this stuff (save Iraq), I sure as hell haven't heard about it. At any rate, rescinding the Federal Communications Act of 1996 would be tough, if only for the reason that the press would demonize anyone who tried. I mean, who can go up against the combined powers of Disney, Viacom, Sony, News Corp, AOL Time Warner, and Clear Channel, and that other media giant that currently escaped me and hope to win?

    Posted by shadow master at 03/28/2008 @ 02:21am

12. END THE WAR? Why should we end the war in Irak? We went into Irak with our best show of force, shock and awe. We killed several hundred thousand innocent civilians. We have displaced four million people. We didn't find any massive weapons or weapons of mass destruction as the inspectors and Scott Ritter told us. We have flattened museums, libraries, mosques and entire historic cities in the seat of civilization, and now a rag tag bunch of fighters is defeating us with sling shots and pea shooters. How can we defeat a people who have been so angered that they are willing to commit suicide, just to kill several of us. We have deluded ourselves into, "its our world", mentality when we are 5% of the world's population and we may be the only super power, but the Chinese have apparently developed an electric boat that is so silent that it is virtually undetectable. One of these placed on either coast, well you get the idea! What happens when we manage to anger 95% of the world?

    Posted by julien38 at 03/28/2008 @ 03:47am

13. Posted by julien38 at 03/28/2008 @ 03:48am

14. One way to end the war would be for Americans to stop volunteering to fight and all of us to stop "supporting" those who do volunteer to fight. [mickeyz.net]

    Posted by coolobserver at 03/28/2008 @ 07:16am

15. Posted by SLIVER 03/27/2008 @ 9:38pm | ignore this person

    I'm so glad you are posting here. your thoughtful and nuanced posts make a great contribution.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/28/2008 @ 09:38am

16. I'm so glad you are posting here. your thoughtful and nuanced posts make a great contribution.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/28/2008 @ 09:38am

    You're welcome. Feel free to ignore me at any time.

    Posted by Sliver at 03/28/2008 @ 11:28am

17. This is a good start, if it can be implemented. For those of you who think we can win the war, we can't, face it. The cluster **** in office has let 4000 of our people died for NOTHING and no matter how you look at it, that is a fact. For those of you, to young to remenber, google 'vietnam war' which really wasn't a was but a police action which is why the veterans from that era have gotten screwed when it comes to their medical needs. The middle east has been warring for over 2000 years and to think that 'we' can change that, is beyond the pale. The Iraqi government needs to step up and take responsibility for it's country and people and until they do that, nothing will change. All the troops, that are currently there should be brought home NOW, they have been there tooo long without a break and that can cause mistakes and unnecessary deaths. Rotate the troops don't just leave these people over there for ever and ever. One more thing, it may have started out to be about the oil, but 5 years later and 4000 people less, we do NOT get oil from Iraq, that was just a ploy and the oil companies are using to keep raising prices. Wake up America....

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 03/28/2008 @ 11:39am

18. With regards to FATBOY 03/27/2008 @ 4:55pm ...

    Quiz Time!

    1. Whom among the following has the most combat experience under the US flag in a war theater?

    A. George "Bring It ON!" Bush

    B. Dick "So?" Cheney

    C. Jacques Le Poo, the metrosexual French pansy who dabbles in having a dick up his ass, sits in a cloud of his of his Calvin Klein perfume in a Left Bank café all day while collecting welfare checks, smoking clove cigarettes, and hand-waving about Sartre while denouncing the miliarism of "Les Etats Unis".

    D. All of the above with: No combat experience under the US flag in a war thater.

    Any guesses on this ... ????

    Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 at 03/28/2008 @ 12:41pm

19. FATBOY likely livs up to the name, in light of the precedent set by other loud-mouthed belligerants for battles to be fought by other people like the (by his own description) obese JOMAMA.

    He should be infomred that the military over which he masturbates huimself, blistered and dry, on a daily basis has its own doubts about the cheerleader in the Oval Office, George "Bring It ON!" Bush. From Ken Silverstein at www.hapers.org:

    Agustus Richard Norton, a combat veteran and retired Army colonel, taught at West Point for more than 12 years and is now a professor of anthropology and international relations at Boston University. I spoke with Norton–who was an expert adviser to the Iraq Study Group–earlier today about the situation in Iraq. Here's his take on the situation:

    "We can't maintain the deployment that we have in Iraq. The Army is stretched to its limits. There is a flood of captains leaving the Army, and they're the best and the brightest, the ones with the best fitness reports and educational backgrounds. In other words, we are losing many of the young officers who should be the future operations officers, battalion commanders, not to mention generals. We're losing an essential part of the officer corps; in many ways the brain trust of today's army. The pattern is that they serve two or three tours in Afghanistan or Iraq and then their families ask, "What the hell are we doing?" Headhunting firms come along and recruit these guys for nice paying jobs in business and industry. In recent years, you have about 50 percent of West Point officers leaving the service, and that's at the first available opportunity, there are additional incremental losses after that point. That's as high a rate as we've seen in decades. The same is true of many sharp R.O.T.C. commissioned officers. The top brass have the numbers and they should be worried about the drain.

    This problem has been largely hidden from public view by the Pentagon, and stopgap measures have been taken to mitigate it. In particular, the (six-month) officer candidate schools are being expanded to commission promising sergeants. These OCS officers usually do a fine job as lieutenants and captains, and even majors, but comparably few of them will rise to higher ranks.

    So there's a real structural problem to sustaining a force in Iraq at pre-Surge levels. The Army is stretched thin, morale is depleted, plus there's the financial cost and the question of defining "success." You don't get to a stable outcome in Iraq under any realistic terms for a long time, and yet it is unlikely that the U.S. can sustain its present level of deployment.

    The last few days have not been promising. The Surge has been very dependent on the ceasefire with Jaish Al-Mahdi Shia militia and that's coming unstuck. The arrangement with the Sunni "Awakenings" guys was a good tactical move, but let's not confuse ourselves. We're basically paying salaries of about $300 a month to 80,000 people in the "Awakenings" Councils–these are local militias with tribal connections and they're making a temporary arrangement with us that's very much in the spirit of an Arab proverb: "Kiss a dog and take something from him." They're taking something from American now–money–which allows them to operate, to challenge state power, and to be better prepared the next time that a major conflict erupts. In effect, we are facilitating the formation of sectarian militias. The policy is, for the moment, smart, but there are very real mid-term risks.

    It looks like President Bush is going to kick this can down the road and avoid any significant withdrawals other than the planned reduction in surge units. That might be smart election-year politics and allow him to retain what's left of his "legacy," but by doing so he adds to the structural strains on the Army and only postpones the inevitable reckoning that must occur."

    Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 at 03/28/2008 @ 12:49pm

20. 3) I'm not sure what we should do now.

    Posted by FDR42 03/28/2008 @ 12:44pm | ignore this person

    what did we do to try to end the cold war? NEGOTIATE.

    the withdrawal of US troops, desired by most if not all Iraqis can serve as bargaining chip. The Vietnam war too was ended by negotiation.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/28/2008 @ 12:52pm

21. JOMAMMA HAS COME OUT OF THE CLOSET, OR PERHAPS THE AIRPORT BATHROOM STALL, AND DECLARED HIMSELF TO BE A MUJAHEDIN WHO CALLS ON IRAQIS TO TARGET THE US AND ITS PEOPLE IN THE SERVICE !!!

    Here it is, in his own words. Like George "Bring It ON!" Bush, JOMAMA has given the greenlight from his frayed reclining chair in dismal Nebraska, for Iraqis to put Americans in the crosshairs. Through the dense fog of beerfart, he writes::

    I volunteer the Iraqis to partake in their own liberation from Husein, AQ and us...maybe the 4.2 million should return to help build their own country and stop AQ from killing them, their neighbors and us...they have oil, so they have resources to use once the slaughter of the Iraqis by AQ ends...we have paid enough...

    Posted by JOMAMMA 03/14/2008 @ 3:15pm

    Why does JOMAMMA hate us for our freedoms?

    Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 at 03/28/2008 @ 12:58pm

22. It looks like President Bush is going to kick this can down the road and avoid any significant withdrawals other than the planned reduction in surge units. That might be smart election-year politics and allow him to retain what's left of his "legacy," but by doing so he adds to the structural strains on the Army and only postpones the inevitable reckoning that must occur."----Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 03/28/2008 @ 12:49pm

    It's more than "looks like"...that's EXACTLY what he's doing. Nobody in the Bush Admin, and not neo-cons in general, plan ANY major withdrawals until after Bush is out of office...can't risk it.

    A. If violence goes down, it proves they were wrong and could have pulled out months even years earlier and saved US lives and treasure.

    B. If violence goes up (though it is already), they just "cut and ran" and the base guesses that McCain will "finish the job", not "stay til it's finished", Nixon 1973 style.

    So, they're going to punt and hope for THESE three options-

    A. (unlikely) McCain wins, Iraq settles down in the next 4 years, Bush AND McCain take credit and get "proven ultimately right".

    B. McCain wins, sees the handwriting on the wall (militarily as well as FISCALLY), pulls the plug with a Nixonian "peace with honor"....Iraq either implodes or goes tri-partite, McCain gets the blame. Bush and Cheney claim "their way was working".

    C. Obama or Hillary wins, pulls the plug...Iraq either implodes or breaks up, ditto Bush and Cheney claiming "they were winning".

    Now there's the "D" option, by which Obama or Hillary get us out of Iraq and they get it settled with negotiations and pan-Arabic solutions (i.e. the HOPED for option)...which would prove a bit embarassing to Bush, but he'll still claim "the initial idea to invade Iraq was a good one"...but with less support than he has now.

    Any way, Bush is the one who's "cutting and running" on Iraq...starting this year and ending on January 20, 2009.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 1:08pm

23. Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 03/28/2008 @ 12:49pm

    BTW, still don't care much for sophomoric "nick-stealing"....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 1:08pm

24. Posted by MASK 03/28/2008 @ 1:08pm

    Yeah, I've had some difficulty "un-stealing it" since I would prefer now to revive a former nick in some form (say G CLARKE LEMON) or introduce something new (like JOHN K ASSHAM which sounds like a vainglorious James Bond parody).

    Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 at 03/28/2008 @ 1:20pm

25. Posted by EULER 03/27/2008 @ 7:09pm

    How much experience does HRC *really* have in gov't - sure she was married to gov't. But marrying a millionaire doesn't make one a stockbroker. Are we counting her "duck and cover from sniper fire" as her foreign policy experience?

    They aren't near as different as HRC would have you believe. (Of course Hillary did get to ride on Air Force 1 with Bill - and I'm not talking about the plane...)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/28/2008 @ 1:42pm

26. Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 03/28/2008 @ 1:20pm

    GLENNLEMON, you ol' such-n-such....been wondering where the heck you've been.

    Good to see ya again, you ol' Cuban apologist!....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 1:53pm

27. (Of course Hillary did get to ride on Air Force 1 with Bill - and I'm not talking about the plane...)---Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 03/28/2008 @ 1:42pm |

    Seems last couple decades, he was putting it in "other hangers"!...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 1:54pm

28. Hey Dem's,

    Well i wondered how long it would take you "Surrendur Monkeys" to get a group of leftwingnuts together and show yoru true colors..:-) I don't thinn you people understand, the WackJobs we are fighting over there want to KILL you! KILL yoru children and you WHOLE family..!!! Do you think that if we leave they will not do everything in there power to come here and KILL you..? I have never in my life thought that we had so many cowards in our country, WHAT HAPPENED..? Better to kill every last one of them over in the desert, than to have to fight them in new york or los angeles..!!! HUH?

    Bill..?

    Posted by tidbit100 at 03/28/2008 @ 2:03pm

29. Is it so tough for the above to admit that they can't stomach a woman president?---Posted by EULER 03/28/2008 @ 1:59pm

    Fair's fair, right?....okay, this true too?

    "Is it so tough for the above to admit that they can't stomach an African-American president?"

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 2:31pm

30. Certainly hope the Senators and Reps who signed on to the document in question don't read these posts. Cynacism is a dead-end street. And, as Mencken said, a cynic is "a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin."

    Posted by felicity at 03/28/2008 @ 2:32pm

31. Better to kill every last one of them over in the desert, than to have to fight them in new york or los angeles..!!! HUH?----Posted by TIDBIT100 03/28/2008 @ 2:03pm

    So Bush is a pansy? Haven't seen the nukes flying, have you?

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 2:33pm

32. And, as Mencken said, a cynic is "a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin."----Posted by FELICITY 03/28/2008 @ 2:32pm

    I'm sorry. H.L. Mencken!?!?!?! was anti-cynicism?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 2:34pm

33. EULER-

    HRC completely brought this on herself. Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton had the kind of "experience" she is accusing Obama to be lacking. It couldn't be more obvious- and it's been thrown back at her from every angle. One could only assume she must think the average American voter is too dumb to realize. Frankly, any person willing and able to weather the campaign circus, has been elected to a previous office, and is 47,000 times more articulate than the current president, has passed the "experienced" test. Both Hillary and Obama are "experienced". Please just leave it at that.

    Posted by phillymark at 03/28/2008 @ 3:00pm

34. MASK 3/28 @2:34pm - Heavens no!?!? It took one to know one - speaking of which are you forever looking for coffins in flower shops? I suspect so.

    Posted by felicity at 03/28/2008 @ 3:32pm

35. Posted by FELICITY 03/28/2008 @ 3:32pm

    No, just sticking to my Ben Franklin-

    "A pessimist is never disappointed!"

    or my G. Bernard Shaw-

    "An optimist invents the airplane. The pessimist invents the parachute!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 3:58pm

36. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=FDR42

    a possible McCain presidency has been described as Bush's third term.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/28/2008 @ 4:50pm

37. We are at least partly to blame.

    Posted by FDR42 03/28/2008 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person

    certainly. but remember we were AFRAID. the attacks on NY and Wash. struck terror in the hearts of most Americans, as they were designed to do.

    that's why Bush's tough talk then and now, rings hollow. same with all the repub keyboard warriors here. they're scared shitless, and the tough talk is merely an attempt to hide that fact.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/28/2008 @ 4:53pm

38. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=FDR42

    yes.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/28/2008 @ 5:08pm

39. Maybe I think Bush is worse than you do

    notachance.

    I don't think the old old soldier is electable.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/28/2008 @ 5:41pm

40. the press will get around to McCain. he's just not a good story right now.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/28/2008 @ 6:05pm

41. So keep firing away, you just reaffirm to evangelicals why they should support McCain.-----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/28/2008 @ 7:17pm

    What if "Temple Mormon" Mitt is his Veep?

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2008 @ 9:16pm