Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy Vote 'Yes' for the War and the IMF?
War Funding Measure a Hard Sell for Pelosi
The Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are aggressively whipping House Democrats to support the 2009 war supplemental bill that seeks to steer another $10o billion in US tax dollars into the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time squandering at least $5 billion on the failed economic schemes of the International Monetary Fund.
But the more than 51 Democrats who opposed an earlier version of the supplemental are giving her a hard time and that's making the project a hard sell for Pelosi.
And rightly so. This is a very bad bill.
Californian Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, leading critics of the Iraq War, pointed out in a letter to their colleagues that "the primary intent of this legislation is to continue funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." That, they point out, is not what President Obama or Democrats in Congress were elected to do. "Continued funding of war operations in Iraq ensures a continued occupation thereby undermining the stated U.S. goal for withdrawal by the end of 2010," argue Woolsey and Kucinich. "Funds for Iraq should be dedicated to bringing all of our troops and contractors home immediately."
Masschusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, another anti-war Democrat, expressing concerns about the administration's push to increase the troop presence in Afghanistan, says, "As much as I love President Obama, I believe that this administration needs to come up with some benchmarks and an exit strategy."
Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur told Congressional Quarterly about personal lobbying of members by Pelosi:
Earlier this week, the Speaker approached Rep. Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio progressive who sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and asked Kaptur to reconsider her "no" vote.Rather than making a case based on the policy, Kaptur said, the Speaker asserted that Obama and congressional Democrats needed to clear the decks of "the last old business" left over from the Bush administration.
Kaptur was unmoved.
"I don't agree with her analysis that we're cleaning up for Bush," said Kaptur, who worries that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly and that the administration lacks a plan for success in Afghanistan. "This is Obama's first chance. This is his first wave."
The questioning of the war is appropriate and necessary.
But it is also right to question the money for the IMF, which Kucinich and California Congressman Bob Filner, another Democrat, worry could be part of a broader scheme to "bail out private European banks with U.S. taxpayer money."
Even if the money goes straight into IMF coffers for its loan programs, that's a problem, as the IMF continues to pressure countries around the world to cut social services and undermine infrastructure as part of wrongheaded "structural adjustment" initiatives.
As of now, the word is that the conference report on the war supplemental will reach the floor early next week.
That means that lobbying of members this weekend could be crucial.
As Kucinich says, "From what I can see, [members who so far have refused to bow to pressure from the administration and Pelosi] are concerned about going home and having to explain why they voted for the war when their constituents are opposed to it..."
Opponents of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of unsound economic strategies, should feed those concerns by telling their representatives to vote "No" to war and the IMF.
16 Comments so far
Show AllIsn't politics just amazing? Threats to life and limb along with bribery and extorsion by King Con and his crew are merely "arm-twisting" as in "we're all just chillun at the playground".
It's clear. WE WANT HEALTHCARE, NOT WAFARE. Now Mr. President. What part of that don't you GET?
OK, first of all, you folks bashing John Nichols should chill out. John Nichols loves Dennis Kucinich. Always has. Always will. John Nichols deserves big props for writing about this when few others are writing about it.
Second of all, y'all should check out Jane Hamsher's Call to Action on the War/IMF Supplemental. And you should do what she says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wCvgfFpEio
Buyer's regret?
After having fawned all over Obama during the election, and written countless articles supporting him, now Nichols, and that rag he writes for, the Nation are having regrets.
He sounds like Tom Hayden ragging on MoveOn for not coming down on Obama's War.
What the hell did you expect Nichols? Didn't Obama say he intended to keep an unspecified amount of troops in Iraq? Didn't Obama turn bellicose on Afghanistan once he eliminated Billary by slamming her for voting for the war? Are you people complete fools or just hypocrites?
I can't wait until the next election so we can vote in someone who will REALLY change things... or maybe the election after that... or...
I just emailed and called my representative Henry Waxman, thanks to an "Action Alert" from Voters for Peace. Here is the info to call and/or email your own Congressional representatives.
I have often sent Henry Waxman (Rep-Santa Monica CA) emails to stop the wars, impeach Bush, remove Pelosi from chair of the House, etc. to no avail. Perhaps you will have more influence. IT WON'T HURT AND IT MAY HELP!
Make your representative that you are going to hold the S.O.B. politician personally responsibile if he votes for more war in Afghanistan. Especially if she/he is a DEMOCRAT.
(And get ready for the California socialist Peace and Freedom Party convention in August 1st, 2009, in San Francisco, to become a national party! At last!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Here is the info from Voters for Peace:)
While there are reports that the leadership has reached agreement to pass the $106 billion war and IMF funding bill, arms are still being twisted.
A vote could happen any time so please take action now as it looks like they do not have the votes sewn up yet.
Call Congress - 202-224-3121 -- (tell the operator to connect to your Representative) and say vote No on the supplemental. It is a twofer -- you vote against the wars and the IMF!
You can also write Congress here.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1312/t/6850/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27117
(From Voters for Peace)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Here is a terrific article from WSWS today on General Stanley McChrystalm appointment to Afghanistan!
New US commander in Afghanistan assembles team of assassins
By Bill Van Auken
12 June 2009
"Confirmed Wednesday as President Barack Obama’s new commander for the widening war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, General Stanley McChrystal has been given extraordinary powers to assemble his own staff.
According to press reports published Thursday, in forming a permanent war council-dubbed the Afghanistan-Pakistan Coordination Cell-McChrystal is drawing heavily from a super-secret assassination squad that he commanded under the Bush administration.
..."
Read the full article here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/mcch-j12.shtml
Reminds me of that line from the Who's song: Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Obama's White House is arm-twisting and threatening progressive members of his party, members who were elected and whose constituents voted for Obama, for standing up for the principles on which they were elected. Funny how becoming President and Speaker of the House makes one so much above those principles they claimed to be running to stand up for.
Disillusioned does not begin to describe my opinion of our new government for "change." "Yes we can" -- but what is it that we're doing with this new-found power? Keeping things the same, it seems.
I don't know much about the IMF except for the evil it has become. Is the author trying to imply that my vote for a Democrat was in essence a vote for the Republicans? If so, I seem to be feeling more stupid every day for having voted for Obama last year.
Duly noted...
Let us put the war on proper footing. This is the Christians vs all the other religions. We need to get the choir going on the theme song, Iraq of Ages, as it appears that is how long we intend to be "over there" and we are going to be"over there" until it is over, "over there".
Check on the Bureau of Iraqi Affairs
BUREAU OF IRAQI AFFAIRS (BIA) march 26, 2003
Dear People of Iraq,
Now that you have been liberated from your tyrannical oppressors, we at the BIA look forward to our relationship with you. Below you will find a list of what to expect from the services of our good offices.
1. Henceforth, English will be the spoken language of all government and associated offices. If you do not speak English, a translator fluent in German will be provided.
2. All Iraqi people will apply for a spot on a citizen roll. Citizenship will be open to those people who can prove that they are Iraqi back four generations with documents issued by the United States. Christian church records may also be given in support.
3. All hospitals will be issued with a standard emergency aid kit. The kit contains gauze, Band-Aids, burn cream, iodine, tweezers, and duct tape.
4. Your oil is to be held in trust for you. We will appoint your new American approved government a lawyer with a background in the oil industry. Never mind that he works for the company that he will eventually cut a deal with. This close relationship will guarantee you more money for your oil.
5. Each Citizen will be allotted one hundred acres of prime Iraqi desert. They will be issued plows, hoes, seed corn and the King James Bible. All leftover land will be open to settlement by Israelis.
6. Each Citizen is entitled to draw a ration of milk, sugar, flour and lard. If you can not use the rations for health or religious reasons you may file a complaint with your BIA appointed liaisons, Crisco. Those Iraqis showing signs of diabetes, heart disease, or glaucoma will be issued with double rations in place of adequate health care.
7. We will mismanage your trust monies, allowing any five year old with minimal computer skills to hack into the system and set up their own account. Records of your accounts will be kept, but you must receive express written permission from the head of the BIA to examine them.
8. In keeping with the separation of Church and State supported by the US constitution, Christian missionaries will be sponsored through government funding. Only Iraqis who convert to Christianity will be allowed to hold jobs within the government.
9. For the purposes of treaty making, any single Iraqi will be found
competent to sign on behalf of all other Iraqis.
10. Welcome to the Free World and have a nice day!
--
Elizabeth Winter * Taos, New Mexico * ewinter@newmex.com
"I'm the person who gets to decide, not you."
George W. Bush - Crawford, TX - 12/31/02
(from CNN.com, dated 1/1/03)
I don't care for the way the author put words into Kucinich's mouth using brackets. Here's what Kucinich said and I think he means all members, not just members who voted no before.
"This is politics, you know, there's a lot of pressure put on members," he said. "But from what I can see, people are concerned that when they go back home, they're going to have to explain why they voted for the war if their constituency's opposed to it. People who have consistently opposed the war are going to have difficulty explaining why they switched."
My Rep., Patrick Ryan, voted for this the first time and he has supposedly been against the war. He's definitely going to have to explain his yes vote to me.
elainem, you're right, for some reason Nichols completely reversed the meaning of Kucinich's statement with that bracketed material that identified people who voted no as those subject to constituency pressure, when the words as he said them clearly refer to yes-voters having to account to their anti-war constituencies. I don't know why Nichols would do that except that, for all his reputation as a "progressive," he never gave Dennis the time of day during presidential campaigns. And of course you can say the same for the Nation's other whole stable of "Progressives for Obama."
Why would he (Nichols) do that? The actual quote is not long and it's not unclear. As soon as I read the bracketed words I felt they were inaccurate and I went looking for the full quote to see what Kucinich really said. He's pretty much of a straight shooter who doesn't get bogged down with rhetoric or have trouble expressing himself.
Is there no one in the media who can report a story truthfully? I guess we know the answer to that: not in the "mainstream" corporate-owned media.
I am opposed to a bill to spend so much money on war and opposed to giving money to the IMF. People may think that I am being negative but there is nothing more negative than war. If the IMF is trying to deny poor people their human rights to vital funds then the IMF is too negative to be productive for the Global Village. Not one more dollar for killing in war. The IMF must have strings attached that insure the money helps the poorest of poor and the environment and not the richest of rich who may neglect people in need and destroy the environment.
perhaps i'm failing to understand the numbers.
all other sites and stories claim the imf amount to be over one hundred billion. here, nichols says "at least 5 billion."
either way, the suppression of the american sheople continues.
How many congressional Democrats will save themselves from the stupidity and venality of the Obysmal Bunch and vote no?
I have a little bit perverse and not very hopeful view of the prospects of the supplemental, with its IMF attachment, being defeated. For one thing, Pelosi has only to "peel off" about 15 Progressive Democrats, as she was not able to "peel" Kaptur. Others may be more vulnerable; if the leadership and the President use the kind of hardball pressure they used to get the bailout funding passed after it was first rejected, her "peeling" operation may be successful. Not only that but the unanimous (or very close to it) opposition of House Republicans will give the Democratic leadership their usual foil against the "evil" Republicans, so that if the "no" vote is right for the Republicans, it will represented as wrong for the country. It's not yet clear that Blue Dog fiscal conservatism is seen by most Democrats as the road to political success. So all in all, it will be a very interesting vote.