[imc-st.louis] [Fwd: Call to Action: Obey and Pelosi at it again!!!]

[Ben]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Call to Action: Obey and Pelosi at it again!!!
Date: 	Wed, 7 Nov 2007 16:26:53 -0500 (EST)
From: 	Tina Richards <tina at grassrootsamerica4us.org>
Reply-To: 	tina at grassrootsamerica4us.org

peace logo

Grassroots America, A Non Profit
*November 7, 2007*

 *Greetings!*

Thank you everyone for your calls in support of my son.  The hearing was
moved to Monday afternoon, but many reached him prior.  He is now facing
one more court date in another city.  If you are able to donate to help
with transportation costs, it is appreciated.
Thank you again for all your support.
Tina Richards

<https://www.paypal.com/cgibin/webscr?first_name=&last_name=&undefined_quantity=1&business=tina@grassrootsamerica4us.org&image_url=&return=http://www.grassrootsamerica4us.org/payment&cancel_return=&item_name=Travel%20Expenses&amount=50.00&shipping=0&currency_code=USD&item_number=&cmd=_xclick>

*Action Alert*
*Calls Needed to Pelosi and Obey ---
They need to hear from us Idiot Liberals!!!!

*
*Demand an Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops!*
It appears, from press accounts (see bleow) and conversations with House
staff, that the House leadership (Pelosi and Obey in this case) are
still deciding on the details of a 'bridge fund' for Iraq.

*This is an opportunity for us to demand a binding timeline for
troop from Iraq.*  We could demand that Congress pass no bridge funds
for Iraq -- but that would do nothing to force a troop withdrawal,
because Bush could use other money in the Pentagon budget to fund the
occupation of Iraq.  So our best bet at this time is to make sure Obey
and Pelosi hear loud and clear that this funding should be used to force
troop withdrawals:

*Call Pelosi - 202-225-0100*
*Call Obey -  202-225-2771*
* *
*Tell them: any funding for the Iraq war must have a binding timeline
for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military contractors
from Iraq. *
Background:
We don't know for sure what conditions Pelosi, Obey and Murtha are
discussing, but it appears that some of the main points they are
considering are:

- a bridge fund of less than $50 billion
- language about bringing troops home, possibly by Christmas '08 [but we
don't know if they are leaning toward a 'goal' or a strict timeline, and
we can be sure that they are only thinking of 'combat' troops, allowing
for some troops to stay]
- the funding might include other conditions such as requirements for
troop rest time, and it might also include restrictions on torture

*Our calls to Pelosi and Obey are essential to push them to adopt
language that will require the immediate and rapid withdrawal of all
U.S. troops and mercenaries! *
/Below are two articles, which shine some light on the matter./
 From /*Roll Call*/, Nov. 7: /(excerpt from a longer article about the
overall budget battle) /
Democrats, meanwhile, planned to take up the $459.6 billion Defense
spending bill combined with a stopgap spending measure Thursday that
would keep the government running through Dec. 14. Democrats also
planned to separately take a separate Iraq supplemental bill that will
be loaded down with strings that likely will include a goal for
withdrawing troops by next Christmas and set the stage for another veto
showdown.

The stopgap spending includes about $6 billion in new emergency spending
for the Gulf Coast recovery and $500 million for recovery from wildfires.

Democrats also are including all the funding President Bush sought for
veterans, but not the $3.7 billion in additional spending Democrats have
included in the separate veterans' bill tied to the Labor-HHS-Education
bill. The maneuver helps inoculate Democrats from charges that they are
playing politics with veterans because they can point out that they have
repeatedly sought to give more money to veterans than the president, but
they are not willing to do so if it means slicing domestic programs,
which Bush has demanded.

The size and look of the Iraq supplemental bill remained in flux
Tuesday, although House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chairman
John Murtha (D-Pa.) predicted that it would be less than $50 billion and
provide a few months of funding for the war, tied to a goal for bringing
the troops home.

"By Christmas next year is the date we'll probably settle on," Murtha
said. He said the goal is to have legislation worked out with the Senate
beforehand so it could pass the Senate without changes and go straight
to the president.

However, as even Murtha acknowledged, the regular Defense bill allows
President Bush to spend billions on the war for months by transferring
funds from other accounts. The bill also includes more than $11.6
billion in emergency off-the-books spending for new mine-resistant
vehicles headed for Iraq, bringing to about $17 billion the total
Democrats have appropriated for the vehicles for the war so far this
fiscal year.

Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the war-funding bill
will include some of the same provisions that they have already sought
to pass previously, but they would not detail their exact plans.

Pelosi defended the Democratic efforts to end the war, and said she did
not have the power to end it on her own by preventing funding from
coming to the floor, because Republicans could offer motions to recommit
that likely would pass.

"Would that I had that power," Pelosi said.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) summed up the Democratic
efforts to try to change the course on the war while continuing to fund
it at levels even higher than under previous Republican Congresses.
"Obviously if you don't succeed, you try, try again, and that's what
we're doing," he said.

But Hoyer defended moving forward with the Defense bill without strings
attached. "What we have said is we're going to support the troops. As
long as the troops are in harm's way, we're going to make sure they get
the equipment that they need," Hoyer said, dismissing the idea of
holding up Defense funding.

"It's not an option for us not to support our troops," Hoyer said.

Murtha said the war supplemental was kept separate from the Defense bill
because the restrictions Democrats plan to put on the supplemental would
have endangered passage of the Defense measure.




  War Funds Absent From Pentagon Budget

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
(11-06) 14:08 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
House and Senate negotiators agreed Tuesday on a $460 billion Pentagon
bill that bankrolls pricey weapons systems and bomb-resistant vehicles
for troops, but does not pay for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Republicans said the omission would impose an unnecessary strain on
troops, but the Democratic majority said it wouldn't leave the military
in the lurch.
"We'll take it step by step," said Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the
House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. "The public wants this war over."
House Democrats said they were considering separate legislation that
would allot some $50 billion in war spending. Murtha, D-Pa., said the
measure also would likely impose restrictions on the money, such as
demanding that troops leave Iraq sometime next year.
The money would be enough to keep the wars afloat for a few more months,
providing only about a quarter of the $196 billion requested by
President Bush.
The House planned to vote on the two bills on Thursday.
Debate comes as Congress remains deeply divided on the Iraq war. Noting
a decline in enemy attacks, Republicans are optimistic that the war
recently turned a corner and conditions will steadily improve before
next year's elections.
For their part, Democrats are struggling to fulfill an election mandate
to end the war. They lack enough votes to overcome procedural hurdles in
the Senate or override a presidential veto. And while they are united
against the U.S. presence in Iraq, Democrats are split on whether to cut
off money for combat as a means of forcing troop withdrawals.
By dividing the Pentagon's budget in two  annual spending versus war
money  Democrats will be able to vote against paying for an unpopular
war and still say they support the troops, by agreeing to the military's
core budget.
The approach also puts Senate Republicans in a tough position. If the
House passes a bill, as expected, that pays for the war but sets a
timetable on troop withdrawal, Republicans will have to decide how far
to go to oppose it.
"I don't think people will want to be in a position to filibuster money
for the troops," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee.
Republicans said the Democratic-majority was playing a dangerous game.
"I do believe that Congress would break the Army if it refuses to fund
the troops with what they need now," said Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska,
the top Republican on the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Stevens said the Army would run out of money by January unless Congress
approved war spending. He suggested adding $70 billion to the bill for
the wars, but Democrats, who control the panel, declined.
"This amendment would send to the president additional funding for his
horrible, misguided war in Iraq without any congressional direction that
he change course. No strings attached," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.,
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Congress has approved some $412 billion
for the war there, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office. Most of the money has paid for military operations, while $25
billion went to diplomatic operations and foreign aid. About $19 billion
has gone toward training Iraqi security forces.
While the Pentagon spending bill omits money for the war, it does
include $11.6 billion for Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.
MRAPs are being used by troops in Iraq to protect against improvised
explosive devices buried beneath the roads.
The bill also funds the Pentagon's major modernization programs,
including $3.2 billion for 20 F-22 fighters and $3.4 billion for the
Army's Future Combat System.
Lawmakers boosted funding for several politically popular programs,
including $900 million for defense health and $980 million for National
Guard and Reserve equipment. A 3.5 percent pay raise for military
personnel also was included, representing a half percent increase to the
president's request.
Appropriators also agreed to $8.6 billion to pay for Bush's missile
defense program. But the amount does not include $85 million requested
by Bush to begin construction on interceptors in Poland as part of a
European missile defense system, which has roiled relations with Russia.

Asheville North Carolina has a newly formed IVAW Chapter.  Please join
in support of Jason Hurd and all the hard work he is doing!!!!
Even if you don't live in the North Carolina area, please go to IVAW.org
see what you can do to help with events they are organizing!!!

Here are a few activites they tentatively have planned for Spring!!!

1. Shut down the Fayetteville recruiting station

Fayetteville has the busiest military recruiting office in our entire
nation and we want to shut it down for an entire week! We will begin
every morning bright and early with a formation of IVAW and VFP members.
The formation will sound off with some catchy slogan as the office opens
for business (I personally like the "War is not a game!" chant). We will
leave a presence at the recruiting station during business hours every
day to hand out literature, advise potential recruits and peacefully
disrupt daily operations.

2. Host a servicemember/veteran outreach fair


We will have professionals on-site from the legal, financial and medical
communities (as well as any other helpful profession) to provide free
counseling and services to veterans, servicemembers and their families.
This event will also include free music, food and fun! IVAW and VFP
members will host the event in order speak about our own experiences and
spread our messages.

3. IVAW presence at Fort Bragg's main gate

We will have a handful of IVAW members displaying a simple IVAW banner
at Fort Bragg's front entrance. This has been done successfully in the
past and garnered an overwhelmingly positive reaction from the Fort
Bragg community.


4. Visit hospitalized servicemembers

We will use this opportunity to visit sick and injured servicemembers at
Womack Army Medical Center. We want to find out if they are getting
sufficient medical care as well as offer our assistance and support to
them.


5. Canvassing local restaurants and businesses

Local restaurants and businesses fill up with military personnel during
lunchtime. IVAW and VFP members will use this time to hand out
literature at these establishments and strike up conversations with
servicemembers.


6. Enter local high schools and colleges

We will request time from local schools for IVAW and VFP members to
speak to students about military service. If the schools refuse to let
us in, we will simply hold vigils outside to make our message heard.


7. Public Forums and Speaking events

We will organize numerous public forums and speaking engagements
throughout each day for IVAW and VFP members to get their stories out to
the Fort Bragg/Fayetteville population.


     Again, this is neither an exhaustive nor a finalized list of
events. These actions are merely starting points in the initial planning
stage for this week. Thank you all for your time and I look forward to
your input and participation. You may contact me anytime at
jehurd at gmail.com
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001h4dy5nYiDPIs2sVpx23Drz2GCCGblI_2vhEk8jPI9qmKZlPQJa9NFppBefy7cN163DNKQ3MxZ2hw7ceFhynBSjyqjRM9cl20V2V2PZAa9UtxkGQHxb1vhwjb1D1XHLXQCDA9FqOqy8gDDPTjzsONMDu-CUV166Rt-sQ_vxi5AzxOkCDeNVF0nVG_HHbEGpzCw0CjqRm49IU=>
.




"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious,
makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even
passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears
and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've
got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run
it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will
be prevented from working at all!" - Mario Savio
Tina Richards
Grassroots America, A Non Profit

Forward email
<http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101651668549&ea=westbywest%40riseup.net&a=1101870991348>
<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1101651668549&ea=westbywest%40riseup.net&t=1101870991348&lang=en&reason=F>

This email was sent to westbywest at riseup.net, by
tina at grassrootsamerica4us.org <mailto:tina at grassrootsamerica4us.org>
Update Profile/Email Address
<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1101651668549&ea=westbywest%40riseup.net&t=1101870991348&lang=en&reason=F>
| Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe
<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1101651668549&ea=westbywest%40riseup.net&t=1101870991348&lang=en&reason=F>^(TM)
| Privacy Policy <http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>.
	
Email Marketing
<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=TEM_BusLet_003> by
<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=TEM_BusLet_003>

Grassroots America, A Non Profit | c/o Institute for Policy Studies |
1112 16 St. NW | STE. 600 | Washington | DC | 20036


-- 
Ben West
westbywest at riseup.net
http://savetheinternet.org