Bring the Troops Home - Homeward Bound Act Introduced

A Bi-partisan group of Members of Congress - two Republicans and two
Democrats - introduced the Homeward Bound Act on June 16, 2005 to begin
the process of putting in place an exit strategy from Iraq. The
resolution calls for bringing the troops home no later than October 1,
2006. Below are statements from the website of three of the original
co-sponsors. Two other Members immediately joined as sponsors Lynn
Woolsey (D-CA) and Martin Meehan (D-MA).

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH):

The Beginning of the End of the War in Iraq

On June 16, two Democrat and two Republican Representatives introduced
a bi-partisan Resolution to begin the process of withdrawing American
troops from Iraq.
Members of Congress Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI),
Walter Jones (R-NC) and Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced the Bill along with
additional cosponsors Martin Meehan (D-MA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
More cosponsors from both sides of the aisle are expected to sign on to
the Bill soon.

The Homeward Bound Act, H.J. Res. 55, is a binding Resolution calling
for President Bush to announce by the end of 2005 a plan for withdrawal
from Iraq that would begin by October 1, 2006.

The Bill is intentionally crafted to avoid partisan finger-pointing and
recriminations. In a press conference announcing the legislation, the
Congressmen described having received large numbers of messages from
their constituents that it is time to begin withdrawal and stated that
influenced their decision. Take note, those of you who may not be
making your feelings known to your Representatives, whatever their
party affiliation.

Referring to the bi-partisan sponsorship of the Bill, Dennis said it
was possible "because four Members of Congress put aside any kind of
differences that we may have had in the run-up to the war and the
conduct of the war, and we’re saying this is the way to bring our
troops home."

Cosponsor Rep. Walter Jones originally supported the war. He is the
Congressman who advocated the renaming of French Fries "Freedom Fries"
in the House cafeteria in response to the French government’s
unwillingness to go along with American wishes when the war was
accelerated in March 2003. Rep. Jones said he began to have a change of
heart after attending the funeral of one of his constituents, a Marine
killed in action in Iraq.

"I am troubled by the past.... We need to take a fresh look at where we
are and where we are going," said Rep. Jones. "The American people are
going to contact their Member of Congress and say, ’Please, look at
this resolution,’"
In response to questions from reporters about the likelihood of the
Bill’s passage in this congress, or its survival in Committee, the
Congressmen predicted that, with continually-diminishing public support
for the war and increasing discontent over U.S. casualties, their
resolution would spur a public dialogue that could force President Bush
to outline an exit strategy.

The New York Times wrote: ( http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com
/2005/06/16/politics/16cnd-exit.html&OP=1653f683/8Q3CHQ518N_ ...
) "With opinion polls showing a drop in support for the war, and a
British memo asserting that the Bush administration had intended to go
to war as early as the summer of 2002, the words ’exit strategy’ are
being uttered by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill."

The financial cost of the war is a factor which could help to sway
lawmakers who might not respond to other considerations. As pointed out
by two people from Augusta State University, when all military-related
expenditures are considered including interest on the national debt,
the actual cost of our nation’s "defense" is 68 cents out of every
Federal dollar ( http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050610/twothirds_on_defen
se.php
) . According to their report, "On a per-capita basis, the average
American in 2004 then did not pay $1,488 for defense but $2,605. In a
word, the military ran on $217.08 per citizen per month, while the
remainder of the federal government ran on $103.83 per citizen per
month."

In a Gallup Poll taken June 6-8, nearly six in ten Americans polled want at least a partial withdrawal to begin ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=16771
). According to the Gallup News Service, "Most Americans [are] favoring
a partial or complete withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, and for the
first time, a majority say they would be upset with the president if he
decided to send more troops. This comes at a time when basic support
for the war is as low as it has been since the war began.... Since last
October, at least half of Americans have consistently said the war was
not worth it."

CNN is running an online poll of its own ( http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/16/us.iraqresolution
/
) which, at the time of this writing with 48,000 votes, is running 79%
to 21% in favor of plans being drawn up now for withdrawal.
Legislation has been introduced in the Senate as well. S. Res. 171 -
asking that the President submit to Congress a time frame for the
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - was introduced on June 14 by Sen.
Russell Feingold (D-WI).

Please contact your Member of Congress ( http://www.house.gov/ ) - regardless of his or her party - and urge support for H.J. Res. 55, the Homeward Bound Act.

Here is a long list of talking points: http://www.kucinich.us/archive/home/display.php?src=k_200506
14_ernfbaf.cuc
"It is time to thank our troops and say ’Come home,’ " said Dennis.


Walter Jones (R-NC):

June 15, 2005

Dear Fellow Eastern North Carolinian,

In recent days there has been considerable press coverage on my
position on America’s presence in Iraq. Despite what some media
accounts have said, I want to make it crystal clear that I am NOT in
favor of any immediate withdrawal nor do I support setting an end date
at which time all troops must be out of Iraq.

What I do support is a public discussion of our goals and the future of
our military involvement in that country. The resolution I am
co-sponsoring will do no more than call on the President to set a plan
and a date to begin reducing the number of troops we have in Iraq. It
does not in any way, shape or form set a date certain for complete
withdrawal. This approach should give the President the flexibility he
needs to reduce our presence in a way that protects U.S. troops and
allows Iraqis to pick up the fight. No one is talking about "cutting
and running."

In my opinion, this is the appropriate action to take for our troops,
for our national security and for the Iraqi people. America faces many
other threats that can easily escalate into conflicts that require
military action. Iraq’s neighbor, Iran, is a constant nuclear threat. A
madman ruling North Korea has openly admitted to having nuclear
weapons. Communist China is sucking up American jobs, using its booming
economy to rapidly expand its military, and threatening Taiwan and
other Asian allies. Even at home, every week 16,000 illegal aliens
stream over our weakly guarded Mexican border, and any one of them
could be a terrorist. With this in mind, we need a plan to begin a
gradual reduction of our presence in Iraq so that our military, which
is the most potent fighting force in the world, is ready to address
these other threats.

No one is prouder of our military men and women in Iraq, or more
grateful for their service and sacrifice, than I. They deposed one of
the most ruthless tyrants in human history. They have trained, and
continue to train, thousands of Iraqis in the skills necessary to
defend their country against insurgents. They allowed Iraqis to freely
cast their ballots in the country’s first democratic election in
decades. And because of them, Iraq is on track to establish a new
Constitution in October of this year, and to elect a permanent
government in December.

As Brigadier General Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman
in Iraq, said last week: " . . . this insurgency is not going to be
settled . . . through military options or military operations. It’s
going to be settled in the political process." With that political
process now reaching its maturity, and with the number of trained Iraqi
security forces increasing daily, it is perfectly reasonable for the
American military presence in Iraq to, at some point, begin to decrease.

Conservatives across the spectrum from Robert Novak to Patrick Buchanan
to the godfather of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley, have come
to a similar conclusion. In fact, on May 6th Buckley wrote: "The day
has to come, and the advent of that day has to be heralded, when we say
that our part of the job is done as well as it can be done... It is an
Iraqi responsibility to move on to wherever Iraq intends to go."

Clearly, we are giving Iraqis every reasonable chance for a democracy,
but at some time in the near future, the ultimate fate of Iraq will,
and should, rest in the hands of the Iraqis. We will continue to
support them in their efforts, but we cannot forever be depended upon
as the primary defense force in Iraq, nor can we compromise the ability
of our armed forces to adequately respond to the other emerging threats
that endanger America.

May God bless our men and women in uniform and continue to bless America.

Sincerely,
Walter B. Jones
U.S. Congressman, NC-03


Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)

Iraq War resolution (pdf):
www.house.gov/abercrombie/Iraq%20War%20Res.pdf

Gallup Poll:
www.house.gov/abercrombie/gallup.poll.htm

Philadelphia Inquirer: "Officers: Military Can’t End Insurgency":
www.house.gov/abercrombie/philadelphia.inquirer.htm

Photos:
www.house.gov/abercrombie/photogallery5.htm



Washington, DC — Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would begin no
later than October 1, 2006 under the terms of a bipartisan "Homeward
Bound" resolution introduced today by Congressman Neil Abercrombie
(D-HI) and five other members of the House of Representatives.

Joining Abercrombie in introducing the resolution were Reps. Walter
Jones (R-NC), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ron Paul (R-TX), Martin Meehan
(D-MA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

The measure calls for the President to announce a withdrawal timetable by the end of this year.

Abercrombie said: "Our troops have done everything we’ve asked of them.
Their patriotism, bravery and professionalism have been superb. Thanks
to their sacrifices, Iraqis now have the opportunity to shape their
country’s destiny.

"By keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, we’re asking them to
resolve political and social issues that need to be resolved by Iraqis
themselves. That’s unfair to the troops, their families, and the
country. The strain of unending deployments has put unbearable strains
on our military, particularly the Reserves and National Guard.

"It’s time to get serious about an exit strategy. The breathing space
offered by this resolution affords Iraqis a reasonable time to develop,
with our help, a force capable of ensuring the security of their own
country. If they can’t do it by then, we have to acknowledge that we’ll
be mired there for a very, very long time. That’s more than the
American public will stand for or our military can bear without
seriously eroding its capacity to meet the full range of its
responsibilities.

"We need to advance a serious public discussion about withdrawing U.S.
forces from Iraq. We understand that the stakes are high and feelings
run deep. That makes it all the more important that this discussion
take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect and sober consideration,
with the focus on policy, not politics. If we fail in that regard, the
damage to our country, our foreign policy, and our Armed Forces will be
incalculable."

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12701&a...