Barbara Lee: No more U.S. troops to Afghanistan
By Josh Richman
Thursday, October 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pm in Afghanistan, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Mike Honda, Pete Stark, U.S. House.
As Obama Administration officials mull the pros and cons of a increase in the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, has introduced H.R. 3699, which would prohibit funding for any such increase.
“History tells us that there will not be a military-first solution to the situation in Afghanistan, “she said in a news release. “Open-ended military intervention in Afghanistan is not in our national security interest and will only continue to give resonance to insurgent recruiters painting pictures of foreign occupation to a new generation.”
“I applaud the Administration’s decision to conduct a much-needed strategic review of our military presence in Afghanistan,” she continued. “As we consider the possibility of further entrenching United States Armed Forces by sending significantly more brave men and women in uniform into harm’s way, this legislation sends a clear message in opposition to this course of action.”
Among the bill’s 21 original cosponsors are Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont; Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose; and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma.
[Both comments and pings are currently closed.]
October 1st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
One, two three
Look at Barbara Lee!
Three, four, five,
Look at Barbara jive!
Barbara Lee!
Nice to see that she has the support of the Bay Area loony tunes left.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Don’t jump to the conclusion that stopping funding to increase troops to Afghanistan is a left only position.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) voted with Barbara Lee in 2002 against fundung the invasion of Iraq in the first place.
Tall Paul,
He’s my all!
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:10 am
Good point, Ralph – though, FYI, I don’t see Paul listed among this bill’s original cosponsors.
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
If Ron Paul and Barbara Lee are your geopolitical guides, Osama bin Laden should be your national security expert.
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Well, Elwood, why should we spend money and American lives in Afghanistan? How is this a “loony tunes left” thing?
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
9/11
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:46 am
Barbara Lee is spot on. In response to Elwood, I have only one word: Vietnam.
What is the mission in Afghanistan? We have been there 8 years and have accomplished putting in a weak, corrupt regime, turned the Afghan people (who once supported us) against us, spent hundred of millions dollars on war efforts, and not improved the lives of Afghans, which might have made us friends and partners with the people rather than occupiers.
The money spent on Afghanistan should have been 90% for rebuilding their nation and 10% for security rather than the other way around, so now after 8 years, what have we accomplished and what will more troops do. We will only fuel more discontent as we kill more innocents, fueling more hatred, and making it so in the end we will have to leave just like all who have invaded for 2000 years have had to do.
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
So, let’s bug out and create a safe haven for bin Laden and his fellow terrorist scumbags.
Good idea!
October 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Barbara Lee reads tea leaves on Telegraph Ave. and then states her position. Half the folks in Oak-town couldn’t find Afghanistan in the “A” section of an index let alone the map of Asia.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Michael Carano explained the facts better than anyone else. Think how many American lives have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, compared to the ~3000 US lives lost on 9/11. We invaded Iraq to protect our Middle East oil interests, not because of 9/11. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives were lost in both places by our attempts to fight a conventional war against savvy terrorists. The result
has been loss of our good name by locals, and our allies. BTW, Ron Paul had tea parties long before “Conservatives” did, or Barbara Lee read tea leaves!
October 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Our hero, Ron Paul, is an isolationist who hasn’t got past the America First (Charles Lindbergh, chief patron) mentality espoused before Pearl Harbor. Ask any ex-con how keeping your head down helps you avoid the psychos–it doesn’t. Sorry folks, those nice Talibanis and jihadis who haven’t attacked Switzerland or Andorra haven’t done it out of kindness, but from strategic choice. America is the major power standing in the way of their goals. Afghanistan was a holding action during the Rumsfeld watch. It’s the front line now.Does al-Qae’da have an exit strategy?
October 5th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
What began with Pearl Harbor, ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, with nuclear proliferation, we can’t afford WWIII. The Taliban are not a Homeland Security
threat for the US, al-Qae’da is. Why not give the Taliban control over Afghanistan (They already have it.), let them keep al-Qae’da under control, and give President Karzai $1MM more to expand his USA restaurant business, in return for stepping down?
October 5th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
RR, should I invite Ron Paul to the ribbon cutting of the Medical Marajuana Dispensary, Thu., October 8, 5:30pm, 1291 Oakland Blvd, Walnut Creek? He could sign his new book, “End the Fed” while we all watched the pickets at Planned Parenthood next door.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I Can not for the life of me understand why we are there in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Unless it is –
-THE POPPY FIELDS.
Tillman paid the ultimate price for raising this question.
America has been involved ( C.I.A.)that is,in the Drug
Trade since Vietnam (Heroine),then Cocaine to fund the
war against the Sandenistas in Nicaragua.C.I.A. LosAngelis.
Now it’s Haroine again.