Out of Iraq in 2007 sign now

Do you agree with the March 8th letter to colleagues below from Representatives Maurice Hinchey, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Jerry Nadler, and Sam Farr calling for a fully funded withdrawal of our troops from Iraq?

More specifically, do you support Rep. Barbara Lee's amendment to the House leadership's plan?
Lee's amendment would fully fund the return of all our troops from Iraq by the end of this year at the latest, and is supported by the United for Peace and Justice coalition, as well as Representatives
Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Raul Grijalva, et. al.

If yes, sign on to this petition, pass it along to all you know, call Congress toll-free at (888) 851-1879, and check in at PDAmerica.org for updates.

Joel Tyner
County Legislator
324 Browns Pond Road
Staatsburg, NY 12580
[email protected]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554095 ...

GALLUP: 58\% Want Pullout in Iraq Within 12 Months
By E&P Staff [Editor & Publisher]

Published: March 06, 2007 9:00 AM ET

NEW YORK A record number of Americans now say that the Iraq war was a "mistake" and less than half say the U.S. can win the war, a record low number, according to a new Gallup/USA Today poll released today. Almost 6 out of 10 Americans (58\%) want troops to be withdrawn within 12 months and only 13\% support sending more.

Americans are in favor of congressional legislation that would set a timetable for withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, and 54\% want to set a cap on the number of troops...

Over three-quarters of Americans support Congress both requiring U.S. troops to come home from Iraq if Iraqi leaders fail to reduce violence in that country and also requiring U.S. troops who served in Iraq to remain home for one year before being redeployed there...

The poll was taken March 2-4.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From http://lee.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=985&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=980...

Contact: Nathan Britton (202) 225-2661

Barbara Lee and Colleagues Unveil Plan to Fully Fund Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Iraq

(Washington, DC) Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), accompanied by colleagues from the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus, issued the following statement at a press conference on Capitol Hill today to announce a plan to fully fund the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year:

We are here today to discuss our proposal for Congress to fully fund the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31st, 2007.

The American people sent a clear message in November they called on Congress to bring a responsible end to the Bush administrations failed policy in Iraq, and that is what the Lee Amendment is designed to do.

Let me briefly explain what the Lee Amendment would do.

It would require that all funds appropriated for Iraq could be used only for the following purposes:

First, to complete the withdrawal of all US Armed Forces and military contractors from Iraq by December 31st, 2007.

And second, to provide for the protection of those forces and contractors during the course of that withdrawal.

We also clarify that while this would effectively end our military occupation of Iraq, it does not prohibit or restrict funds from being used for diplomatic efforts or reconstruction.

According to a Gallup poll out this week, 6 in 10 Americans (58 percent) want U.S. troops to be withdrawn within 12 months.

This very simple proposal represents where the majority of Americans are with regard to Iraq, and we are in discussion with our leadership to consider this proposal in formulating the supplemental.


The text of the Lee Amendment:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. ___. (a) Funds appropriated for Operation Iraqi Freedom or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense under any provision of law may be obligated and expended within the Republic of Iraq only for the purpose of providing for

(1) the continued protection of members of the Armed Forces who are in Iraq participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Iraq performing contracts related to such Operation, pending and during the withdrawal of such members of the Armed Forces and such contractor personnel; and

(2) the safe and complete withdrawal from Iraq of all members of the Armed Forces and contractor personnel described in paragraph (1) pursuant to a plan that provides for completion of the withdrawal not later than December 31, 2007.

(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of funds available to any department or agency of the United States to carry out diplomatic efforts or social and economic reconstruction activities in Iraq.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=12346 ...

National Peace Organizations Call on Congress to Stop Funding the Occupation of Iraq and Vote to Bring our Troops Home in 2007
by David Swanson
March 16, 2007

Contact: David Swanson, After Downing Street 202-329-7847 (cell)
Kevin Martin, Peace Action, 301-537-8244 (cell)
Kevin Zeese, Democracy Rising, 301-996-6582 (cell)

Congress Dithers as Americans Across the Country Mark the Beginning of the Fifth Year of War and Occupation of Iraq

Silver Spring, MD -- On the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, national peace organizations including United for Peace and Justice, Military Families Speak Out, Code Pink: Women for Peace, Peace Action, Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy Rising, Voters for Peace, Democrats.com, After Downing Street, and the Backbone Campaign today called on Congress to use its power of the purse and pass binding legislation limiting funding to bringing our troops home from Iraq as quickly as possible in 2007, and to vote against the supplemental appropriations bill to continue funding for the war in Iraq unless it contains such a provision. All of these groups work together as part of or along with United for Peace and Justice, the country's largest anti-war coalition with over 1400 member organizations.

The groups are united in opposing current Democratic leadership plans to continue funding Bush's war well into 2008. The Senate is poised to vote on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's proposal, a loophole-ridden joint resolution calling for a non-binding goal of completing the withdrawal of most US combat troops by March 31, 2008. At the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi struggles to round up the votes for a $124 billion supplemental appropriations bill, the lion's share of which would fund perpetuating the occupation of Iraq. Pelosi's bill posits a withdrawal deadline of August 31, 2008. US Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) intends to offer an amendment to fully fund a safe and orderly withdrawal of US troops by December 31, 2007. This amendment has the support of the national peace groups, who are mobilizing grassroots constituent pressure in favor of it.

Progressive Democrats of America Director Tim Carpenter said, "Fully-funded safe withdrawal within a year is not an extreme position. It's the position of 60\% of the American people, according to last week's USA Today-Gallup poll. And that position would be even more popular if Democratic leaders stood their ground and fought for ending rather than prolonging the occupation. Many Americans fear that a reckless President is threatening to expand his disaster into Iran . So do many Democratic leaders - but they lack the will to even assert Congressional authority on the matter of Iran." Carpenter referred to the House Democratic leadership's dropping of a provision in the supplemental appropriations bill earlier this week stating Bush cannot attack Iran without explicit congressional authorization.

"President Bush, who vows to veto legislation with any limits on his war-making authority, and Congressional Republicans' single-minded, open-ended support for the war and occupation of Iraq is a cancer on our politics and a calamity for the people of Iraq and our troops," said Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action Education Fund. "But Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's job should not be to round up Democratic votes to continue to spend hundreds of billions of our tax dollars for another year and a half or more of Bush's war. That's not the mandate for peace the voters delivered last November."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-03-07-17-50-28-news.php ]

Path-Breaking Iraq Plan Unveiled for Fully-Funded Withdrawal

March 7, 2007

On Thursday morning, members of Congress are unveiling their plan for a fully-funded, systematic withdrawal of U.S. soldiers and military contractors from Iraq. The plan would provide all resources needed by military commanders to execute an orderly withdrawal by a date certain.

The proposal is being discussed at a 9:30am Capitol Hill news conference, featuring Reps. Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey and others. There can be no complaints that this plan in any way endangers U.S. troops.

Antiwar forces are uniting behind this plan, which is expected to be proposed as an amendment to Bush's $93 billion Iraq supplemental appropriation request. Instead of funding an endless war, Congress will be offered a way to fund an orderly end to the war -- thereby heeding the call voters sent them last November.

* PDA urges its members and allies to continue contacting Congress by phone (toll-free 1-888-851-1879) or other means to support a fully-funded withdrawal. If such an amendment is NOT adopted, urge Congress to vote "NO" on the Supplemental, and an unending occupation.

* Listen to PDA Advisory Board member and Progressive Caucus co-chair Barbara Lee explain the latest strategy in a brand new podcast talk specifically to PDA.

* Contact other labor, civil rights and peace groups you are affiliated with - such as MoveOn or any others - to urge them to rally behind "fully-funded withdrawal within a set timeframe."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From TalkingPointsMemo.com...

Liberal House Dems To Unveil New Approach To Ending War
By Greg Sargent | bio

The liberals are coming! Get ready -- progressive House Dems are going public with their own plan to end the Iraq War.

As we reported here yesterday, a bunch of key liberal House Dems are now taking behind-the-scenes steps to build support for an approach to ending the Iraq that's more aggressive than the one preferred by the House Dem leadership.

The liberals' approach is this: They want any Congressionally-approved funding for the war to be earmarked specifically for withdrawal -- the idea being that they are pushing for a "fully-funded withdrawal," rather than a defunding of the war.

Now these liberals are going to present their plan to the public. Tomorrow morning, a group of them -- including Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler and others -- will hold a press conference to detail the specifics of their plan. It'll be interesting to see how the House Dem leadership reacts.

As we also reported yesterday, the liberal Dems are privately circulating a "dear colleague" letter designed to win over other House members to their approach:

Dear Colleague,

We write to share our thoughts with you about Congressional action regarding the ongoing occupation of Iraq and to make the case for fully funding the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq over a clear timeline.

By framing their discussion of the war in terms of winning and losing, the Bush administration seeks to portray critics of their policies as opposed to victory, or supportive of defeat.

The fact is that you cannot "win" an occupation, just as there is no way for the United States to "win" an Iraqi civil war.

The Bush administration understands this, just as they understand that there are no pretty or clean options for bringing a responsible end to our policy there. They are content to mouth the words of victory while they try to run out the clock, playing a cynical game of political "chicken," where whoever acts to bring a responsible end to their failed policy will be accused of having lost Iraq.

There is no question that moving to stop this folly carries a political risk - the accusation that Democrats gave up on the Vietnam War, despite all evidence that it was an unwinnable conflict, hurt the party's credibility on national security issues for a generation.

But we must consider the very real cost of not acting. We are spending $8 billion a month occupying Iraq, with an average of 67 U.S. troops being killed and 500 being wounded. The cost to our security of having our military bogged down in Iraq indefinitely is unsustainable, and is not only sapping vital funds from efforts to fight global terrorism, but is strengthening jihadist recruitment efforts internationally. The longer we allow the administration to delay meaningful movement, and the longer we fail to extract ourselves from this quagmire, the more dangerous this failed foreign policy becomes to America and the rest of the world.

As General Odom, the former head of the NSA under President Reagan, has made clear, withdrawal of U.S. troops is a precondition for engaging other countries in the region on their vested interest in Iraq's future stability. In terms of policy, fully funding the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops makes strategic sense.

Congress is going to have to act decisively to end this occupation and to bring troops home. Bush has bet his legacy on an unnecessary war that his administration has botched at every turn. His escalation plan is a plan to pass the buck. If anyone thinks that it will be easy for the next President, even a Democrat, to quickly extricate our nation from the mess Bush has made, he or she is just wrong. Congress is going to have to act, either sooner or later.

The Bush administration argues that Congressional action on Iraq either constitutes micromanagement or cutting off funding for troops in the field, but let's look at the facts.

Fully funding withdrawal is not micromanagement, it is macromanagement - the Bush administration has so badly managed this effort that they have forced Congress to intervene.

Fully funding withdrawal is not cutting off funding - we are going to fully fund a rational alternative to the administration's attempt to run out the clock on their failed policy.

There is ample precedent of both Republican and Democratic Congresses acting to restrict or direct funds during wartime and the time has come to consider such action again.

We have a responsibility to challenge the administration's efforts to run out the clock, and by proposing to intervene by fully funding a policy that actually fulfills our nation's long term strategic security objectives, we force them to defend their track record on the war, which is a debate that Democrats win every time.

We hope to work with you to develop strategies to fully fund the safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.



Member of Congress


Member of Congress


Member of Congress


Member of Congress


Member of Congress


Member of Congress

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Barbara Lee Calls for Fully Funded Withdrawal from Iraq, Enforceable Timelines as House Panel Considers Emergency Iraq Spending Bill"

March 15, 2007, Washington, DC

Invoking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) called for a fully funded withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, criticizing funding for the Bush administration's escalation of the conflict in Iraq and the lack of enforceable timelines, during the House Appropriations Committee's markup of the proposed $124 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. The following is her statement:

"When Dr. Martin Luther King Junior gave his speech 'Beyond Vietnam, A Time to Break Silence' at the Riverside Church in New York City in 1967, he said that 'a time comes when silence is betrayal.'

"He said 'Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.'

"That is very much the position I find myself in today. What I have to say is not comfortable, yet I am compelled by my conscience to speak.

"As many of you know, this is my first time addressing the full Committee, and I am mindful of the fact that the matter we are considering today is perhaps the single most important issue facing Congress and our nation.

"The American people went to the polls in November and gave us a mandate to end the occupation of Iraq, and to bring our brave men and women home. The legislation we are taking up today constitutes the first real steps of this Congress to grapple with how to fulfill that mandate. That is a positive step.

"I thank and commend the Chairman for all of his work on drafting this bill and his efforts to bring the committee together on this issue.

"The administration is basically forcing Congress to intervene to bring a responsible end to their failed policy in Iraq. Given the enormity of what that entails, it is not surprising that we have differences of opinion on how to proceed, so let me thank the Chairman again for at least listening.

"In considering this supplemental spending bill, we have not only an opportunity, but an obligation to pass a bill that will end the occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home.

"As you all know, last week I proposed the Lee amendment. I am not offering it as an amendment today in due respect to the Chairman's request, but I still believe it offers the clearest way to end the occupation and I want to take a moment to explain why.

"My amendment is designed to fully fund the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

"It would require that all funds appropriated for Iraq could be used only for the following purposes:

"First, to complete the withdrawal of all US Armed Forces and military contractors from Iraq by December 31st, 2007.

"And second, to provide for the protection of those forces and contractors now and during the course of that withdrawal.

"This is a rational and practical approach, not a cut and run strategy.

"The American people overwhelmingly oppose the escalation and Congress just voted against it, it just makes no sense for us to turn around and provide funds for it. My amendment would not cut funds, but rather use the funds in the supplemental to bring our troops home safely.

"The supplemental in its current form in effect gives the President another chance with some constraints, and after four years I don't think the President deserves another chance.

"Rather than give the President another chance, my amendment is designed to use the funds in this supplemental to begin to end the occupation.

"My amendment would bring a clear end to the open-ended policy of making our troops play referee in a civil war, and it would give the commanders on the ground the resources and the discretion to safely bring our troops home in a reasonable period of time.

"The administration likes to talk about the situation in Iraq in terms of winning and losing, because it is convenient to portray critics of their policies as opposed to victory, or supportive of defeat.

"The fact is that you cannot 'win' an occupation, just as there is no way for the United States to 'win' an Iraqi civil war.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0315-22.htm ...

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

The 'Support our Troops' Myths
by Ira Chernus

Are you hoping those spineless Democrats in Congress will cut off the money for the war? Well don't hold your breath. Even a stalwart liberal like Barney Frank demurs, explaining that "it's a high-risk thing" -- a high risk to the Dems' chances of winning next year's election, because most voters clearly do not want war funds cut now. That includes a surprisingly big chunk of voters who oppose the war. They say openly that it's a disastrous mistake, but they don't want Congress to best thing it can do to end the war.

Though the Bush administration can't figure out how to win in Iraq, it is scoring a big victory on the public relations battlefield with its favorite myth: If you cut funding for the war you are not "supporting our troops." If you support the troops you have to keep on paying billions for a failed war.

To believe that one, you've got to believe several other myths.

Myth one: The Bush administration does support the troops. In fact, of course, they've shorted the troops on everything from body armor to medical care for four years now.

Myth two: The only way to support the troops is to put them at risk of death or grievous injury and leave them there, for no good reason. If that's "support," then I'm glad I'm not being supported.

Myth three: Either we keep war funding at its present astronomical level or we won't be supporting the troops at all. In fact, there is plenty of room to find a middle ground, to cut the funding by some amount yet still give the troops what they need to stay safe.

These are myths that are out and out falsehoods. Why would so many people buy into them? As a historian of religions, I suspect that it has a lot to do with other powerful myths that have always been woven around soldiers and the military.

Here I don't use the word "myth" to mean a lie, but rather the way we use it in my field of study: A myth is a story that is widely believed because it expresses people's basic worldview and values . People who live by a myth don't care whether it is factually true or logically consistent, as long as it gives them a way to make sense out of their world and find meaning in their lives.

In an age when it's hard to believe in heroes, the mythic "GI" of the American media is someone people want to identify with and emulate. When you can imagine yourself as the main character in the myth, that's when the myth really grabs hold of you.

I suspect that is what's happening to a lot of people who oppose the war but insist on "supporting our troops." They see their soldiers as uniquely admirable role models. In the popular imagination, these soldiers are ordinary youngsters (thus easy to identify with) who have extraordinary character. They are "just plain kids" who have the kind of heroic virtues that most kids don't seem to have anymore -- unless they go into uniform.

The mythic soldier's virtues are all about caring for others -- buddies, the outfit, the service, the nation -- more than self. After all, no one forces them to serve. They volunteered. (The myth conveniently ignores the economic pressures that drive people into the military.) And the news media give us an endless parade of these uniformed heroes, all looking noble and handsome, telling us that it doesn't matter whether or not they approve of the war. "I made a commitment. I have an obligation to serve. I have to do my duty," is their constant refrain.

Identifying with such selfless heroes lets ordinary civilians imagine that they, too, might someday somehow rise to that higher level of virtue. It lets them believe that in a world so saturated with selfishness, selfless devotion to duty is still a possibility.

It also lets them believe that somewhere in this chaotic world, there is at least one institution where order still prevails -- where orders are given and carried out, where someone is in control and everyone knows it, where the concept of authority still means something. To people who feel that their own world is spinning out of control, it can be awfully comforting to have these uniformed, duty-bound heroes to identify with.

To people who feel that their nation is saturated with selfishness and spinning out of control, it can be equally comforting to see noble young people willing to sacrifice themselves for their nation. "Our troops" seem to care more about America than anyone else. So they send a reassuring message that somehow (even if we don't know quite how) "America" is still worth serving, sacrificing, and even dying for.

Of course that's the strange thing about this myth: It is most powerful when we identify with heroes who are dead. It is usually displayed (especially in local news media) when a soldier has died. So it asks us to imagine ourselves as dead, too.

Death gets to the heart of the military myth. The absolute finality of death can easily give the myth an aura of absolute significance, making its messages seem like the absolute, final truth. In a predominantly Christian country, the story of a sacrifice of the innocent to save the rest of us (who don't deserve it) makes the virtuous cause for which they died seem sacred, too.

Indeed, there is one theory that every war is a form of ritual sacrifice: We choose some victims from among us to be sent to their deaths, so that the rest of us can reap the psychological benefits. Just what those benefits are will vary from one society to another (and from one theory to another).

My hunch is that the crucial swing vote-the millions who know the war is wrong but want to keep paying for it-are getting a psychological payoff from all those media reports of heroes, especially the dead ones. By identifying with "our (dead) troops," the millions can believe that the messages of the myth, which they want so desperately to believe in, are undoubtedly true.

Of course everyone knows, at some unconscious level at least, that it's wrong to send others to their deaths to make us feel good. We owe the dead a debt. But those who benefit psychologically from those deaths don't want to stop the cycle of sacrifice. So they have a simple solution: Let's repay our debt to the already dead by sending others to their death.

When George W. Bush insists that we have to keep fighting -- sending more of "our troops" to their death -- so that those who have already died won't have died in vain, the logic seems totally twisted to many of us. But within the myth, it actually makes sense. "Our troops" have to be funded, and sent into the jaws of death, so that we can go on believing in our own, and America's, virtue.

This all dovetails nicely with that other myth: We are so virtuous that we send our troops to Iraq to help save the Iraqis from themselves. According to one recent poll, 77\% of Americans want to bring our troops home "if Iraq's leaders fail to meet promises to reduce violence there" -- as if the Iraqis are creating all the violence; as if they are a bunch of ungrateful natives who could turn off the violence but just won't; as if U.S. troops have no role in creating and perpetuating the violence.

Here on the homefront, it's easy to believe such a myth -- and to see the whole war as myth -- because the stories about "our troops" are typically detached from any political context, as if Iraq were merely a stage on which "our troops" continuously perform their mythic deeds. It's easy to let it all happen in our imaginations, where we can "die" heroically and still be perfectly safe.

Sadly, this explanation can be just as true, or more true, for the millions who know no safety because they have loved ones serving in battle zones. Many cling to the myth to give meaning to their sacrifice of emotional security, which might otherwise be intolerable.

Understanding the mythic meaning of "our troops" does not in any way excuse the irrationality of funding a war that most Americans no longer want to fight. But it helps us understand why the public clings to such an irrational stance. It reminds us that, when it comes to war, political decisions are shaped as much or more by irrational myth than by thoughtful logic.

And it challenges us to think about how all Americans might be able to find a sense of virtue, order, security, and national pride without sending anyone off to die -- or to kill. If we could create a society that could manage that feat, or even strive toward it, we would have a nation we could really be proud of.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. [email protected]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3538...

Are You Ready to Begin the End of the War?
March 12th, 2007

Are you ready for U.S. troops to stop combat operations in Iraq and start packing their bags to come home?

Are you ready for them to bring all U.S. military contractors home with them?

Are you ready for Congress to stop funding the war and occupation and tell the Pentagon that they can only spend money to bring the troops home safely?

Then call your Representative today:

Tell them to support the Lee Amendment to restrict Pentagon spending in Iraq to funding only the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors by the end of this year at the latest.

Call toll-free: 1-888-851-1879

Ask to speak to your Representative.

Sample Script:

My name is ___________ and I live in _________ (town or city). I am calling to tell my Representative that I want him/her to support the Lee Amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Bill to fully fund a safe withdrawal of our troops and military contractors from Iraq.

Will the Representative support this amendment?

After you make your phone call, make your protest visible by joining one of the more than 375 antiwar events planned to mark the beginning of the 5th year of this immoral war. We need to be in the street to make our opposition to the war loud and clear. Find an event in your community or list your event here.


Finally, Congress is ready to set a date to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

But too many members are willing to wait too long. Under the current Democratic Leadership plan, U.S. combat troops could be in Iraq through the fall of 2008, and non-combat troops could be there forever!

In spite of media reports to the contrary, the leadership plan will prolong the war and more Iraqis and U.S. troops will die.

In addition to the overly-long timeline, the leadership plan has a number of other grave problems, including:

keeping U.S. troops in combat;

giving Bush too much leeway to drag out the war and send troops who are not combat ready to Iraq;

blaming the Iraqis for problems caused by the U.S. war and occupation and commanding them to fix the problems we've caused;

funding the 'surge' the House just voted against, and allowing Bush to 'certify' that his 'surge' is making progress;

adding new money for waging more war in Afghanistan.
If this leadership plan goes through, the war will continue with no clear end in sight for U.S. troops in Iraq.

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing


Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in


I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

0 / 50

Latest Signatures

No one has signed this petition yet


Daryl WalkerBy:
Entertainment and MediaIn:
Petition target:
United States residents


No tags


Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title