Now THIS is going to be cool.

We founded TrueMajority and TrueMajorityAction to offer an easy way for all those people out there who want America to be more just and compassionate to speak out. It really caught on, and turned into one of the largest online groups in America. But now, it’s time to take it to the next level.

As of this month, TrueMajorityAction is merging our operations with USAction, one of the pre-eminent field organizing progressive groups in America.

(more…)

Here’s the latest from the Antiwar Room: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7233192191101033516.  What you don’t see is a discussion John Isaacs and I have off camera about the Reed Levin amendment on Senate Defense Authorization, which I think is too weak, because of the many loopholes for leaving the troops in.  He argues that the House legislation has the same loopholes.  I don’t disagree, but I feel that the vote yesterday was entirely symbolic, whereas the Senate vote has some chance of making into law.  With John’s permission, I am reprinting a blog post he wrote about troops getting out for his site at Council for a Liveable World.

 Darcy Scott Martin, Washington DC Director

From John Isaac’s blog:

Leaving some troops in Iraq
 

Many anti-Iraq war activists are wary of amendments that require most American combat troops to leave Iraq, while leaving some number – 30,000 - 60,000 – in the country for training purposes, defending the American presence and chasing terrorists.
 

Some see the remaining soldiers as part of a plot to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq to protect American oil interests.
 

I beg to differ. 
 

My view is that once the American troops start leaving in large numbers, they all will follow.  That is, neither the American nor the Iraqi populations will tolerate a permanent presence of a large contingent of American troops.  A decision taken today to remove combat troops is a decision to bring them all home.
 

Moreover, if 160,000 American troops can have little impact over there, what makes anyone think that 60,000 or 30,000 can, or are less vulnerable to attack even if hunkered down in “secure” bases or in the Green Zone or outside of Baghdad?
 

There were two very insightful – insightful because they agree with me of course – pieces in today’s newspapers.
 

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman today wrote:
 

The passions that have been unleashed in Iraq are not going to accommodate some partial withdrawal plan, where we just draw down troops, do less patrolling, more training and fight Al Qaeda types. It’s a fantasy.  The minute we start to withdraw, all hell will break loose in the areas we leave, and there will be a no-holds-barred contest for power among Iraqi factions. Our staying there with, say, half as many troops, will not be sustainable.
 

He is correct, of course.  Once we start out, we will continue out.
 

Stephen Biddle, who was in Iraq in March and April and is senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, penned an op-ed in today’s Washington Post.  He suggests:
 

Few lawmakers are comfortable with abandoning Iraq or admitting defeat. The result has been a search for some kind of politically moderate “Plan B” that would split the difference between surge and withdrawal.  The problem is that these politics do not fit the military reality of Iraq. Many would like to reduce the U.S. commitment to something like half of today’s troop presence there. But it is much harder to find a mission for the remaining 60,000 to 80,000 soldiers that makes any sense militarily.
 

Biddle, too, is correct.  Those that are agonizing over amendments that don’t bring home every American soldier immediately are missing the forest for the trees.  If Congress passes legislation to get most troops out of Iraq and overcomes a President Bush veto, the U.S. will be well on its way to total withdrawal.
 

Richard Nixon started slowly bring the troops home from Vietnam as part of his “Vietnamization.” But once they started, American soldiers weren’t going back and the remainder of the troops came home.
 

It took years for the withdrawal from Vietnam.
 

It will take a much shorter time from Iraq.
 

Just about every week, a few folks in Washington get together and talk about what will happen next on Iraq War legislation.  I am very often a guest.  Here is the last session:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8382108146468181514    

   Darcy Scott Martin, Washington DC director

A letter from a concerned TrueMajority member who is trying to figure out what to do about the Supplemental:

At the same time that I received your email to call my rep to say No to a supplemental, I received an email from MoveOn.org telling me to call him to vote Yes for an amendment????? I really don’t know what I should do. I personally have been writing and calling for the resignations of the remaining Bush administration to save the integrity of this nation and stopping this illegal war NOW. Not one more penny should be spent except to bring them home and heal the wounded and bury the dead with dignity and grace.

If they put time tables on this supplement/amendment, won’t the prez veto his own money requests?

Stuck in concerned limbo!!!

Wendy XXXXX

My response:

Hi Wendy:

The Honorable Lloyd Doggett

Dear Representative Doggett:

Thank you so much for the consideration you have been giving the Iraq War supplemental funding bill before you.  I just wanted to reiterate the position of TrueMajority.org, its founder, Ben Cohen, and the majority opinion of its 600,000 members.  TrueMajority.org continues to advocate for no more money to support any aspect of the war that is not withdrawal.  Given a level playing field, 40% of our members would have liked to see the Lee legislation pass.  Even with that option available, 35% of our members said no more money, period.  With that in mind, our members have advocated that you vote no on the Supplemental spending bill since last week.

We understand that you are getting pressure from constituents across the spectrum and I am sure that you carefully listen to them all.  We would like to remind you that we consider a vote against the supplemental as a vote of conscience that says “no” to war and no one should be dissuaded from that position.  Regardless of the outcome of this vote, we will continue to work with everyone striving to end the war, but are dismayed by the idea that people of principle are having their issues and positions threatened.  We will not tolerate any retribution on Members of Congress who vote their conscience.

We look forward to working with you in the future to end this war and we know you are carefully considering this hard decision.  Thank you for carrying such heavy weight for the American people.

Sincerely,