"We the people put the Democrats back into power because we want to see a change in this country and a rejection of politics as usual. We want politics as unusual. We want to see the issue of impeachment and a speedy and safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq de-politicized and brought into the realm of "right and wrong" where these issues belong, not "right and left."
Cindy Sheehan Nov. 12, 2006

With the November transfer of the balance of power in both House and Senate to the Democrats, and with growing public unhappiness with the war in Iraq, now is the time for Americans to retake control of our country. Our representatives in Washington, Republicans as well as Democrats, are just beginning to respond to this public outcry. In addition to the Democratic promises to raise the minimum wage, negotiate better drug prices, re-write Medicare and support a new energy policy, two issues, like two elephants in the Congressional room, are demanding their place on the agenda: 1) getting our troops out of Iraq and 2) impeaching Bush, Jr.
The first, and more important issue of getting our troops out of Iraq, was addressed in January 17th's San Francisco Chronicle's "OPEN FORUM," by our Representative Lynn Woolsey, a member of the House Foreign Affairs

Committee, who offered her "BRING THE TROOPS HOME AND SOVEREINTRY OF IRAQ RESTORATION ACT." Woolsey's co-chairs on her committee are Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters. Woolsey already has 24 c0-sponsers. The Bill includes withdrawing all US troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months of the Resolution's enactment, accelerated Iraqi troop training during this six-month period, no funding of any additional combat troops in Iraq, the prohibition of any permanent US military bases on Iraqi soil, and "prohibits the US participation in any long-term oil production sharing agreements before the enactment by the Iraqi government of new regulations governing the industry." The Bill also provides for full funding for whatever health-care needs to which our servicemen and woman are already entitled. In addition, Woolsey's Bill would authorize non-military assistance in Iraq for reconstruction of their public health system, removal of land mines, and recovery of ancient relics, as well as compensation for civilian casualties.

The single item in Woolsey's Bill to which I take exception is: "To authorize, if requested by the Iraqi government, US support for an international stabilization force, which would stay no longer than two years." This item offers too many opportunities for an Iraqi government, tied to Washington's apron strings, to further US interference in it's own recovery. Both the Koreans and the Vietnamese rebuilt their countries without such support after US troops pulled out..

I would add to Woolsey's Bill that we donate to the nascent Iraqi government for their official use, our US embassy now under construction in Baghdad. This $550 million concrete and steel fortress would otherwise remain an irritating reminder to Iraqis of our colonial savagery. We could build a small embassy some where down the street and spend the remainder of our money training future State Department employees to speak Arabic. Today, only six of our present staff of 1000 in Baghdad are proficient in the Iraqis' language.

Despite the recent cross-the-country demonstrations against the Bush Iraqi War, where thousands demanded we bring our troops home, Lynn Woolsey and her two co-chairs are in for a tough sell, even within their own Party.

As writer Edward S. Herman pointed out in his January piece, "Democratic Betrayal, Breaking Promises Again:" "With a splintered and not very well Disciplined Democratic majority in the House, a majority in the Senate with Bush ally Joseph Lieberman as the balancing voter, and with George W. Bush still president and in possession of a veto power, the possibilities for progressive Democratic action are sharply limited."

As noted in a recent San Francisco Chronicle's editorial (19 Jan 2007) "proposals to change the course in Iraq " are reflected in the non-binding resolution crafted this week by Sens. Joseph Biden D.Del, Carl Levin, D-Mich and Chuck Nagel, R-Neb. It declares, "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military presence in Iraq." Non-Binding Resolutions are measures aimed at toe- testing the political waters without diving in, for those politicians who lack Woolsey's courage.

Military disengagement from Iraq will be a tough political sell. Cheney's oil buddies are still trying to get a hand on Iraq's oil, and lobbyists for our dangerous parasite, Israel, are maneuvering to get Bush to attack both Iran and Syria, Washington's hands tied while Israeli forces savaged Lebanon again. On January 10, 2007, in his article: "Distracting Congress from the Real War Plan: Iran," political writer Paul Craig Roberts laid it out clearly: "The only purpose of the surge is to distract Congress while plans are implemented to widen the war. The answer might be that Israel has the chance now. The Bush administration is in its pocket. The White House is working with neo-conservatives, not with the American foreign policy community represented by the Iraq Study Group.

Neoconservative propagandists are in influential positions in the media. The US Congress is intimidated by AIPAC (American-Israeli Political Action Committee, the largest lobbyist, even bigger than AARP). The combination of forces are heavily in Israel's favor. Part of the Israeli/neoconservative plan has already been achieved with the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the spread of sectarian strife in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. If Iran can be taken out with a powerful air attack that might involve nuclear weapons, Syria would be isolated and Hezbollah would be cut off from Iranian supplies. Israel has two years remaining to use its American resources to achieve its aims in the Middle East. The Bush administration has recently doubled its aircraft carrier forces and air power in the Persian Gulf. According to credible news reports, the Israeli air force has been making practice runs in preparation for an attack on Iran.

On January 9, `07, a US nuclear sub collided with a Japanese tanker in the Persian Gulf, highlighting its presence facing Iran. Nobody has said it more clearly than Paul Craig Roberts. As reported in Le Monde (Paris), January 5th, 2007: "General Petraeus (Princeton Ph.D.) will replace General Casey as Commander of the International Forces in Iraq and Admiral William J. Fallon... will replace General Abizaid at CENTCOM..... It's certain that George W. Bush is repositioning his pieces on the game board, but I really have no clue of what's in store."

The total devastation which our western barbarians have visited on Iraq, once the most progressive civilization in the Mideast, is impossible to measure. Beginning with Desert Storm in 1991 we have caused between 1.5 and 2 million civilian deaths, from water-born disease, famine, radiation, and military action. In Fallujah, a city of 330,000, over 30,000 homes have been bombed into rubble and over 20,000 inhabitants live in tents without heat or potable water. Millions of Iraqis have fled to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon. Egypt, and over 1.5 million are internally displaced by our military occupation.

On January 20, 2007, the US had 159,000 combat troops in Iraq. The military costs of the Bush Jr. War so far totals $359,845,491,648 (as authorized by Congress) and rising . We have over 3,000 military killed and have sent home well over 30,000 wounded, many crippled for life. Figures show the civilian Iraqi death toll in 2006 approaches twice that of 2005 (about 24,500 vs. 14,000 deaths confirmed so far). Iraq is in the midst of a civil war which we cannot control. We must force our Representatives to bring our troops home now before Bush Jr. gets us into more trouble, then impeach Bush and Cheney.