Dear MoveOn member,
Did you see the New York Times editorial today? Here's how it starts:
President Bush is discussing a new agreement with Baghdad that would govern the deployment of American troops in Iraq. With so many Americans adamant about bringing our forces home as soon as possible, a sentiment we strongly share, Mr. Bush must not be allowed to tie the hands of his successor and ensure the country's continued involvement in an open-ended war.
MoveOn sounded the alarm about the disastrous agreement early on, and more than 150,000 MoveOn members have signed a petition demanding that Congress stop President Bush from tying us down in Iraq.
Since then Representative Rosa DeLauro and Senator Hillary Clinton have introduced legislation to do just that. This morning's editorial in the Times will build momentum for action—now we need to push it over the top. If we can reach 250,000 signatures this week, the petitions will go straight to Congress on Monday.
Clicking here will add your name:
The petition reads:
"Congress must not let President Bush commit America to an endless military presence in Iraq."
Our original email about this petition, with more details, is here.
Please sign today.
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Justin, Wes, Joan, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Thursday, January 17th, 2008
P.S. Here's a longer excerpt from the editorial:
Don't Tie the Next President's Hands
President Bush is discussing a new agreement with Baghdad that would govern the deployment of American troops in Iraq. With so many Americans adamant about bringing our forces home as soon as possible, a sentiment we strongly share, Mr. Bush must not be allowed to tie the hands of his successor and ensure the country's continued involvement in an open-ended war.
Given what's at stake in Iraq in terms of American and Iraqi lives lost, national treasure and broad national security interests, the negotiations on any new agreement must be fully transparent—which they are not. The national debate must be vigorous and thoughtful, and then Congress must vote on whatever deal results.
Formal negotiations won't start until February and few details are known, but already the two sides are laying down markers. The Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qadir—apparently tone-deaf to the American political debate—told The Times's Thom Shanker that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012 or be able to defend its own borders from external threat at least until 2018.
That is far too long for most Americans, but not for Mr. Bush, who is quite comfortable leaving American troops fighting in Iraq for another decade.
...
Mr. Bush is rushing to complete a deal before he leaves office in January 2009. That is just as reckless and irresponsible as most of his decisions regarding Iraq. America's interests demand that his successor has maximum flexibility to plot a course, which we hope includes a quick and orderly withdrawal of troops.
One way to ensure that flexibility is to make sure that Congress approves any deal with Iraq, as leading Democrats, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, are insisting. The time for Congressional intervention is now.
The whole editorial is here:
Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment