Template:Price timeline Iraq

Here is a Price timeline on Iraq. Further information Toward Truer Representation Of The 4th District Constituency: Iraq also exists.

The comprehensiveness of the information found in this wiki is a function of the input that visitors make. Like most wikies, THIS IS YOUR WIKI, DO NOT HESITATE TO EDIT AND/OR CONTRIBUTE. This timeline is ongoing. If you feel like there is a new development, date, or something missing, then consider that something that you can contribute ... and please do.

August
Believed in “put[ting] forward a strategy for success” in Iraq and for moving [it] decisively toward self-defense and self-rule” (the administration's position)

October 11, 2005
The Iraq Forum on October 11, 2005 demonstrated, once again, the discrepancy between Representative Price and his constituency on the issue of pulling the troops out of Iraq on a set timetable.

Representative Price has changed his position since August from believing in “put[ting] forward a strategy for success” in Iraq and for moving [it] decisively toward self-defense and self-rule” to, in October, believe that “we need to begin leaving Iraq” by adopting an “exit strategy” (which he never defined except for clarifying that it should not include a timetable for withdrawal). Price is moving toward the position of his constituency, but he is still not there.

Objection to H.J. 55

Furthermore, Representative Price said that he does not support  H.J. Res. 55 “Requiring the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, and other purposes.”  Representative Price’s issue with the resolution is the requirement to implement the policy that states: “establishing a plan for the withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Iraq limited only by steps to ensure the safety of such Armed Forces.”  He objects, as if we were a benevolent force in Iraq to start with  --in other words if we don’t state “safety of Iraqis” than the resolution is weak! Did I misunderstand this?

October 25, 2005
Representatives Price and Miller introduce bill H.R. 70 to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.

The bill would require the President to submit to Congress a plan for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, and for other purposes.

Difference between H.J. Res. 55 and Price's H.R. 70
H.J. Res. 55 is explicit in implementation of the plan submitted to congress. H.J. 70 only asks for a plan.

October 31, 2005
Forwarded message from Devin:

Please share with others as appropriate.

This morning several folks had a meeting with Rep. Price. The following is my recollection.

We first did introductions. Attending were Rep. Price and an aide, Jack, Don, Tamara, Devin, Peggy, Heide, Steve, Pete.

Steve began with thanks to Rep. Price for this meeting & the resolution (), saying we are glad that we are coming closer to being on the same page.

Price interrupted to say he was surprised we felt there was still a difference. He said he felt that the activity around Cindy Shehan's protests had made it possible for him to take more public stands  against the war.

Tamara began on the prepared remarks coming out of several previous meetings ().

As Tamara was beginning to draw the distinction between Price's 30- day deadline tied to the passage of his resolution and our desire to see deadlines & consequences tied to the passage of time, Price  interrupted to say "Let's be clear -- this resolution will not pass." He went on to say that if there were any bill, even a much compromised bill, which had a chance of passing he would be in  support of it.

Tamara continued, stressing the need to layout accountability for the Bush administration in more certain and measurable terms since we all  agree this will not pass. When Tamara said we need bold initiatives and real leadership, Price interrupted briefly to qualify her  statement with "bold and unifying".

Tamara continued to describe the reasons taking this bolder position will benefit Rep. Price.

When Tamara used the phrase "vote against the war" a second time Price interrupted to ask what exactly she is referring to. Tamara clarifies that we are talking about funding, and Price nodded. For the next five minutes or so Rep. Price may not have completely heard and/or understood the points Tamara was making about strengthening his bill and using it as a vehicle to garner support in the state. I say this because Price then made reference to the McGovern initiative () in a way that implied that supporting this is what Tamara was calling for. When I suggested we were rather suggesting he insert voting against war funding as a consequence into his own resolution, Price seemed to indicate that once he heard Tamara mention funding he assumed this was our collective thrust. I believe this message confusion was in part caused by the fact that he had very recently received materials on this initiative from Peggy who also was involved in making the contacts to set up this meeting. In the meeting Peggy asked if Price couldn't sign on to the McGovern initiative in trade for support from McGovern for his resolution. Rep. Price was adamantly opposed to voting "to not support the troops in the field" (Prices' words), a position he said was "inherently problematic".

When asked what he thought of our proposal over all, Price said he and Miller looked carefully at other proposals but decided they weren't all there. He expressed surprise there was not yet a House counterpart to Senator Fiengold's proposal (). His started as a restatement of this, to which other concepts were added during discussion.

When pushed on the need for deadlines he responded that his resolution has a deadline. He also stated that his resolution was ahead of where most democratic representatives were and that he  didn't feel there was anything to be gained, and perhaps some to be  lost, by being one of twenty Reps voting against military  appropriations.

When Don said he would be proud if his Rep took this stance even if he was alone, Price reacted in a way that seemed to draw on previous  interactions with Don. He stated emphatically that he was never about to support the original war resolution and he "didn't know where  anyone ever got that idea". Price said he didn't know what we would do after this meeting but he hoped we would continue to work as a  team, that he appreciated where we came from and even the  disagreements so long as we were unified "against the opposition". He said he was glad to be working with the Party and not just outside  groups.

When I made reference to his being very much in touch with where the other Reps were, Price clarified his participation in the "Iraq Working Group" as opposed to the "Out or Iraq Caucus", which he said was specifically the supporters of HJ 55 ().

When I challenged him to also be aware of where his constituency was at, he agreed that the anti-war momentum was real, solid, and  growing. He said he heard our point about harnessing this momentum to push harder. While he reiterated his opposition to an outright vote against military appropriations, he sought to assure us that each  supplemental was contentious and these bills would continue to  provide a mechanism for putting further stipulations on how the war  was conducted.

Price indicated he would appreciate our efforts in building support for his bill from other NC Reps. He stated that Mel Watt was not  taking a position because he was serving as chair of the Black  caucus, which itself has not yet taken a position. He suggested Butterfield and Etheridge may be interested in his resolution.

- devin "What is missing is missing"--The Zapatistas