110th Congress Buys the War

Click image for full-sized versionCertificate of Ownership: 110th Congress Buys the War by stacybannerman Saturday 24 March 2007
Busy week here on the Hill, and I’m sure you know that the 110th Congress just bought the war in Iraq. On Monday, the 19th, the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Military Families Speak Out held a press conference on the steps of the Cannon House building. We unveiled the Certificate of Ownership, complete with warranty – the brainchild of MFSO member Tammara Rosenleaf, who stayed with me and is planning to return in April. (You can download the certificate at www.mfso.org)... (more)

Iraq War veterans also spoke, taking a break from Operation First Casualty, which had them in uniform “patrolling and occupying” the streets of D.C. and Capitol Hill (Photos are available here).

After the press conference, the veterans went deep into enemy territory i.e. the White House, and several dozen military family members and supporters went to Congresswoman Pelosi’s office to pepper the staff with questions, and make another seemingly futile request for a meeting with the Speaker. Military family members spent several hours canvassing Congressional offices with the Certificates, appealing to Representatives to stop the supplemental and end the war.

I was back on the Hill on Thursday for a Senate Armed Services committee meeting, followed by stops at several Senatorial offices. First was Sen. Akaka (D-Hawaii), to ask about my request for the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee to hold a human cost hearing. Bad timing, no one was around to help me, will call next week, and go back. Next stop: the Senate VA committee office in the Russell building. I cc’d them on the hearing request, and asked if there’d been any movement.

The snarky staffer kept saying that they’d never gotten my e-mail, knew nothing about my request, but I refused to leave and, after some pressing, they whipped out the hard copy of my letter. Then the man with the bad attitude metaphorically patted me on the head, saying, “We have hearings all the time, and get expert testimony.”

I reply, “You mean like the expert testimony General Pace provided at an Armed Services hearing in early February when he assured the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee that he was fully confident in the readiness and capabilities of the National Guard, particularly in the border states? And then, two weeks later, Lt. Gen. Blum of the National Guard reported that only 12 percent of Guard units were at readiness?” That kind of expert testimony?”

The man sneers, but remains silent.

“The only people who are experts at the realities and challenges and failure to care for veterans are the veterans themselves and the military families who love them. We need an open hearing.”

I repeated that to Jeff Bjornstad, chief of staff of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), who is a member of the Veterans Affairs committee. Jeff and I talked about a number of things, and I hope to have some progress to report in the next week or so.

Back to the vote. Our people spent much of the day Thursday making phone calls and in meetings with members of Congress, their staffers or aides. It wasn’t looking good, but we knew it was over when the Out of Iraq - whoops, scratch that - the Stay in Iraq Caucus released it’s members to vote ‘yes’ on continuing the funding for the war.
Friday morning some military families and veterans sat in the gallery during testimony and the vote; others stood at the crosswalk that members of congress use to get to the Capitol. I spoke with some of the Representatives on their way to the vote, including Jim McDermott (D-WA), who has been against this war from the start. During my conversation with the Seattle liberal, I caught something in his eyes – remorse? - and I knew he would join the ranks of the dozens of others who were choosing to break their promises to us, the American people, and most disappointingly, the troops.

Some examples: Rep. Wynn (D-Maryland) has made a public commitment to defunding the war. Last month, Congressman Wynn signed onto the Declaration of Peace and publicly committed to defund the war, withdraw US troops, and support a sustained peace process and the reconstruction of Iraq. As part of this, he signed on to Jim McGovern's bill, HR 4232, End the War in Iraq Act, to use the Congressional power of the purse to get our troops out of Iraq starting now. Just a few weeks ago, Rep. Wynn was the only member of the Maryland delegation who said he would not vote for continued funding of this war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

Even more unbelievable is Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), who introduced HR 4232, and has spent years publicly proclaiming his opposition to the war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

The bill does have a timeline, one that brings troops home at the end of 2008, unless they are engaged in training Iraq forces or killing or capturing terrorists. Which means this goes on for another year and a half, and there’s no real timeline at all. Another year and a half where we will see an average of three soldiers dying every day. The bill does place restrictions on the president, and includes a loop hole that lets the president send the troops to Iraq, ill-equipped, ill-trained, and without proper rest, as long as he tells Congress in writing why it's in the interest of national security to do so.

Earlier this year, Congressman Markey (D-MA) signed a pledge to vote against the $100 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq coming before Congress. Representative Markey has stated he would vote against all supplemental funding. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

Who else failed miserably in the integrity department and bought the war yesterday, after getting elected largely because of their opposition to funding it?

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), whose campaign website states:

"The United States must physically leave, abandon our "lone wolf" approach, and work with other nations to stabilize Iraq. Americans have spent billions on this unnecessary war only to see tragedy, fraud, and waste."

I guess Carol thought we should spend another 100 billion more, so that America could add to the tragedy, fraud, and waste while Keith Ellison (D-MN) who ran on an anti-war ticket, and posted this on his website:
"I am calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the war before it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the only candidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops."

Now that Keith’s not a candidate, his true colors come out, and he’s decided that rather than supporting the troops, he supports some sort of withdrawal at some point in the distant future – or not.

Campaign’s over, folks, back to business as usual.

Other disappointments include: Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), another outspoken war critic,
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), et. al.

Of the 14 Dem’s who did NOT vote to fund the war, New York Congressman McNulty’s website statement is particularly noteworthy:

"In the spring of 1970, during my first term as Town Supervisor of Green Island, I testified against the War in Vietnam at a Congressional Field Hearing in Schenectady, New York. Several months after that testimony, my brother, HM3 William F. McNulty, a Navy Medic, was killed in Quang Nam Province.

I have thought -- many times since then -- that if President Nixon had listened to the voices of reason back then, my brother Bill might still be alive.

As a Member of Congress today, I believe that the Iraq War will eventually be recorded as one of the biggest blunders in the history of warfare.

In October of 2002, I made a huge mistake in voting to give this President the authority to take military action in Iraq. I will not compound that error by voting to authorize this war's continuation.

On the contrary, I will do all that is within my power to end this war, to bring our troops home, and to spare other families the pain that the McNulty family has endured every day since August 9th, 1970."

Yesterday, every member of Congress that voted to fund the war bought – at minimum – another year and a half of pain, sacrifice, and suffering, which will be paid for by thousands of American troops and military families, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

note: CP here, I took the liberty of converting the original pdf files of the Certificate of Ownership to jpg form. The certificate is embedded above and below is the reverse, warranty. You can d-load the original pdf's for printing at mfso.org or directly here and here...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The person who owns this war is George W. Bush.

The person who owns this war is George W. Bush. The way I understand the recent legislation, it gives 100% ownership of the war to the Misleader-In-Chief. The House did ok the additional funds BUT also set a firm withdrawl date. Not to mention the withdrawl date is at the end of the Bush era (aka error) so the war ends with the moron who started it. Since so much "progress" is going on in Iraq according to Bush and Cheney, then by fall 2008 we should be gone.

There is a very interesting catch in the legislation that I don't think most have thought about yet. Bush's "winning is staying, leaving is losing" Iraq plan has put him in an interesting spot. Since he doesn't like timetables, he can veto this legislation. If he vetoes the legislation, he doesn't get one more penny from Congress to sustain his war. I've heard that the Pentagon will run out of funds in 3 weeks.

So what would you do if you were W? He doesn't want the Democrats to tell him to withdraw but he needs funds to continue action in Iraq. Do you think he will accept the legislation? Do you think he will bring the troops home now? Do you think he will be stealing funds from elsewhere to continue his war? And $100+ Billion is a lot to scrape out of federal budget - especially since Republicans shrunk to the size so that he can drown in bathtub (aka New Orleans).

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security

like it's some kind of federal program."

- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

stoping the iraq war

we all know that the only way to end the iraq war is to cut off the funds.I realy dont see how people dont understand that when you vote for more funding you vote for the war.theres no end date certain in the funding bill,anybody who says otherwise is a lier.read the bill if you dont beleive me.theres more holes in this bill then you can count.

I am going by Bush's own

I am going by Bush's own words . . .

One of the most urgent legislative priorities is to fund our troops fighting the war on terror. I've asked Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that gives our troops what they need, without strings and without delay. Instead, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives decided yesterday to make a political statement. The emergency war spending bill they voted for would cut the number of troops below the level our military commanders say they need to accomplish the mission. It would set an artificial timetable for withdrawal that would allow the enemy to wait us out. And it would require an army of lawyers to meet the conditions imposed by politicians in Washington who are substituting their own judgment for that of our generals in Iraq. I have made it clear that I will veto any such bill, and it is clear that my veto would be sustained.

To get the votes they needed to pass the bill, the Democrats who control the House also included billions of dollars in domestic and pork barrel spending for local congressional districts. This spending includes things like $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers, and a host of other spending items that have nothing to do with the war. Even with all this extra spending tacked on, the vote in the House was very close. This means that the Democrats do not have enough votes to override my veto.

By choosing to make a political statement and passing a bill they know will never become law, the Democrats in Congress have only delayed the delivery of the vital funds and resources our troops need. The clock is running. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April 15, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions -- and so will their families. April 15 is also about the same time that Congress returns from its Easter vacation. Members of Congress need to put our troops first, not politics. They need to send me a clean bill, without conditions, without restrictions, and without pork.

Radio Address

I love no conditions, without restriction and without pork (guess the Iraq war isn't pork). Sorry to tell Bush but his Republican gang isn't in control anymore. Bush is going to veto the bill meaning NO MONEY FOR WAR! And then who will Americans really blame for putting the troops in danger?

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security

like it's some kind of federal program."

- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

it'll be interesting if Smirk does veto

but first it needs to go through the Senate and the conference committee w/o being gutted.

Then we'll see if he's got the balls to veto, my guess is no....

CP ;>)

"I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat for 23 years and I don't like them now in my own country." - retired American diplomat Joe Wilson

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.