War Is Over (If They Mean It)
-
davidswansonWant to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
By David Swanson
Sixty-five congress members, including 60 Democrats and 5 Republicans, voted to end the occupation of Afghanistan on Wednesday. But 356 congress members, including 189 Democrats and 167 Republicans voted to keep the war going. The vote followed three hours of debate created by Congressman Dennis Kucinich's introduction of a privileged resolution.
The debate featured three leaders from three groups of congress members: the war opponents (almost all Democrats), the pro-war Democrats, and the pro-war Republicans. Given this alignment, which has existed for nearly a decade now, is there any reason for supporters of peace and justice to take heart? I think so. Here's why: If the 60 Democrats acted in good faith and would have voted the same way even if the bill had a chance of passing, or even if that could be said of only 38 of them, then we may very well see funding of the wars dry up. If the leadership includes unrelated measures in the next war funding bill ($33 billion coming in April or May), measures that lead all the Republicans to vote No (as happened last July), then only 38 Democrats have to vote No to block the bill.
Now, there are two weak points in this plan. One is that the war funding could be brought up on its own without anything displeasing to the Republicans attached to it. But that would be the smart thing to do, so don't count on it. The moving of Guantanamo to Illinois has already been proposed for inclusion in the bill. The other weak point is that, of course, very few of the Democrats who voted Yes on Wednesday did so in good faith. Look back to July when 51 Democrats voted no on the funding when it was guaranteed to pass, and only 32 were willing to vote No when they had a chance of actually blocking the bill. Look at Congressman David Obey who voted to end the war on Wednesday and will write and shepherd the bill to fund it next month.
Yet we are in a greatly strengthened position from which to pressure 65 congress members to vote No on the next funding. They just went on record officially acting to end the war. And many of them went on video on the floor of the House speaking passionately in favor of ending the war. Constituents can now play back the videos, praise the anti-war commitments, and demand that none of these officials put our money where their mouth isn't. This whipping operation is being tracked at http://defundwar.org
These are the Republicans who voted to end the war in Afghanistan: Campbell, Duncan, Johnson (IL), Jones, Paul. These are the Democrats: Baldwin, Capuano, Chu, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Crowley, Davis (IL), DeFazio, Doyle, Edwards (MD), Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank (MA), Grayson, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hastings (FL), Jackson (IL), Jackson Lee (TX), Johnson E. B., Kagen, Kucinich, Larson (CT), Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Maffei, Maloney, Markey (MA), McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, Miller George, Nadler (NY), Napolitano, Neal (MA), Obey, Olver, Payne, Pingree (ME), Polis (CO), Quigley, Rangel, Richardson, Sánchez Linda T., Sanchez Loretta, Schakowsky, Serrano, Speier, Stark, Stupak, Tierney, Towns, Tsongas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Welch, Woolsey.
A special focus on Obey would be appropriate. If he claims he wants to continue the Iraq War, he can fund that one separately. He cannot, however, claim that his vote on Wednesday was sincere while he continues to fund the war in Afghanistan. An additional special focus on Grijalva and Woolsey makes sense as well. If they want to end the war and understand it as a matter of life and death on a large scale, they must use the progressive caucus they chair to whip their colleagues to stand with them against the funding.
Whether we are able to block the funding this year or not, the central issue facing our government has been raised, and a debate has been aired. We've identified 356 congress members who need to be sent packing. And we've identified another 65 who need to demonstrate their lack of hypocrisy. I liveblogged the debate at http://afterdowningstreet.org/afghanliveblog and there were many highlights, including a lot of love for President Obama from a lot of Republicans, and a lot of debunking of pro-war nonsense from progressives -- including some really passionate cries for peace that sounded almost, you know, like they meant it.
- davidswanson's blog
- |
- Login or register to post comments
- |
-

- |
Top Actions
-
23,210 of 30,000

-
42,758 of 60,000

-
94,687 of 100,000

Comments
Funding of our troops while in harms way is necessary
As long as our troops are in harms way, we as Americans owe it to them to fund any military action that is deemed necessary to keep our troops safe from harm.
For us to say the 356 members of congress are pro war for protecting our troops and need to be sent packing is unresponsible during times of war.
To call for this many Democrats to be removed also seems to go against principles of backing the Democrat party.
When our troops are safe on our soil then and only then should we consider a
NO MORE WAR approach.
I am against wars, I am not against funding our troops until out of harms way.
BRING THEM OUT OF HARM'S WAY
Get it?
Yes, they are in harms way
and they aren't all coming home tomorrow.
Bringing the troops home will be implemented by a
gradual process, whether we agree with this or not.
Meanwhile, not providing our soldiers with the
equipment they need is irresponsible at best.
This point has totally escaped some people.
Somehow, the notion of leaving our troops
high and dry is their solution to our wars.
Thomas, you GET IT.
And yes Chip, I did read your post below mine
explaining what this was about ( not the funding).
I posted my comment because I have read several
posts throughout the years here that fit my description in the
second paragraph.
That is a republican viewpoint..
that was used to keep the funding going for the iraq war going indefinitly. The idea if the the war funding was cut off our troops would be left defenselss is pure nonsense and more right wing propaganda. I have heard this argument for the last 6 yrs.
Funding to keep the war going indefinitely,
with no exit plan--
and providing troops with flak jackets
( what you call " Republican nonsense")
while plans to bring them home are implemented
are two separate things.
There was NO exit plan before now.
Bush & Co had no exit plan, they didn't believe in one.
I see you posted no attack on the first post here
from another member that echoed my sentiments.
That's interesting.
I have heard this military rah rah rah stuff before
I said nothing about denying our troops with flak-jacket. would be nice if you would not make false statements about what i wrote.
Our military budget is dragging this country to the ground. Like i said before its propaganda that our troops would be defenseless if the funding was cut. pure and simple.
What?
Any support of our soldiers is " military rah rah rah stuff"?
Is that what you are saying?
If not, what in the hell are you talking about?
So,you're not denying them flak jackets.
Really?
Were you in the military?
No I was not in the military
I guess that make me worthless to you. your opinion is wrong here cutting off the funding is not going to leave our troops defenseless. It is one way congress can end needless wars.
Save your curses for the those who put our troops in harms way. In needless wars that only make us more un-safe by alienating more of the muslim world.
Defunding Afghanistan War
Krag, I wonder if kwalf was in the military. At any rate, David Swanson was reporting on the events in Congress that day, which were very significant because it required each House member to take a position publicly on the Afghanistan war. Defunding wars is one way that Congress can end wars. Even if the war was defunded, there would be adequate funds for troop support throughout the re-deployment stateside.
Chip, you already know
the answer to your first question.
The veterans who were active members here
and helped this site left with very few exceptions.
They seldom, if ever post here now.
You are aware of this also.
I almost forgot,
one member ( a veteran) did post here
but had his posts deleted, even though he didn't
break any of the rules of this site.
Chip, you already know
the answer to that question.
Hopefully, you won't delete this post
also.
You know
the answer to your first inquiry, Chip.
?
Kwalf?
The answer to your first inquiry is 'No'-
but you knew that.
Is there ANY chance of answering your first
inquiry?
"Krag, I wonder if kwalf was in the military."
Is sure doesn't look like it.
Practice what you preach, Krag.
You state here,
"I guess that make me worthless to you."
(That is some crazy stuff there.)
Yet, in a previous reply to me you wrote
"would be nice if you would not make false statements about what i wrote."
Practice what you preach.
If this is your idea of communication,
No Thanks!
I meant no offense to you, kwalf
I had 2 uncles that served during ww11. So i mean no offense to our men in the military. opposing wars does not mean a guy despises our military.
i barely missed the vietnam draft. i was very lucky and i honor every vietnam vet. even though the war was ridiculous.
Thank you, Krag.
I agree with you.
My brother is a Vietnam war veteran and I was
opposed to that war. Like you, I honor every
Vietnam veteran.
"opposing wars does not mean a guy despises our military."
Absolutely!
Those are my sentiments, also.
Not About Funding
Thomas, it sounds as though you missed the point of yesterday's congressional debate and vote on the Afghanistan war.
The congressional resolution was undertaken so that Congress fulfilled its constitutional responsibility to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
The congressional resolution read: "
Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan--
(1) by no later than the end of the period of 30 days beginning on the day on which this concurrent resolution is adopted; or
(2) if the President determines that it is not safe to remove the United States Armed Forces before the end of that period, by no later than December 31, 2010, or such earlier date as the President determines that the Armed Forces can safely be removed.
As you can see, this congressional resolution was about bringing our troops safely home to our own soil.
It was about Congress asserting its constitutional responsibility under the War Powers Act, not about continued war funding. Appropriations are handled in separate bills.
>As long as our troops are in harms way, we as Americans owe it to them to fund any military action that is deemed necessary to keep our troops safe from harm.
That's like arguing that since you have your hand in a fire, you need to keep it there until it is safe to remove it from the fire.
>For us to say the 356 members of congress are pro war for protecting our troops and need to be sent packing is unresponsible during times of war.
Those legislators aren't "protecting our troops;" they are continuing to endanger them by not redeploying them stateside.
It isn't irresponsible to call for the election of legislators who favor peace over war.
>To call for this many Democrats to be removed also seems to go against principles of backing the Democrat party.
First off, there is no such thing as the "Democrat" party; that term is commonly used as a slur. Our party is named the "Democratic" Party.
There's nothing in the party principles requiring congressional Democrats to be pro-war. What is wrong with electing legislators who favor peace over war?
Rep. Donna Edwards did a good job of explaining the distinction between supporting our troops, and ending the Afghanistan war.
As you can see from the graph below based on Census Bureau data, military spending for durable goods has dramatically increased over the past decade, while non-military spending greatly declined. Excessive military spending is sucking the economic stability out of our national economy.
Save your curses for the
Save your curses for the those who put our troops in harms way. In needless wars that only make us more un-safe by alienating more of the muslim world.beagle puppies for sale