March, 16 2011, 05:17pm EDT
24 Million People and 81 Congressmembers Push President on Afghanistan Withdrawal
Hours after General David Petraeus claimed progress on Afghanistan in front Congress, 81 Representatives sent a bipartisan letter to President Obama asking that his planned July drawdown of troops from the country be "significant and sizeable." Thirty-one religious, foreign policy and membership-based organizations, representing nearly 24 million people supported the letter.
WASHINGTON
Hours after General David Petraeus claimed progress on Afghanistan in front Congress, 81 Representatives sent a bipartisan letter to President Obama asking that his planned July drawdown of troops from the country be "significant and sizeable." Thirty-one religious, foreign policy and membership-based organizations, representing nearly 24 million people supported the letter.
Paul Kawika Martin, the political and policy director of Peace Action -- a group founded in 1957 and the largest grassroots peace organization in the U.S. -- organized groups to support the letter and stated, "With tragic budget shortfalls in our communities, it's time to transition from extremely expensive and counterproductive Pentagon strategies in Afghanistan to political negotiations and Afghan-led aid and development."
Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA-9), who organized the congressional letter said, "The American people overwhelmingly favor action to speed up U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is time to end this war and to refocus our efforts on job creation and strengthening our economy."
Polls continue to show that Americans have long turned against the war in Afghanistan. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans say the war is no longer worth fighting and three-quarters of Americans want the President to withdraw a "substantial number" of troops this summer.
Peace Action is leading a coalition of groups collecting signatures from Obama supporters and donors asking for a significant change in strategy in Afghanistan and for troops to start coming home now and the U.S. military presence end before the Obama administration's stated deadline of 2014.
"If the President wants to get reelected in 2012, it's clear he needs to convince his base and independent voters that he is ending the war in Afghanistan by bringing troops home in significant numbers no later than July," concluded Martin.
###
Founded in 1957, Peace Action (formerly SANE/Freeze), the United States' largest peace and disarmament organization, with over 100,000 paid members and nearly 100 chapters in 36 states, works to abolish nuclear weapons, promote government spending priorities that support human needs, encourage real security through international cooperation and human rights and support nonmilitary solutions to the conflicts with Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. The public may learn more and take action at https://www.Peace-Action.org. For more up-to-date peace insider information, follow Peace Action's political director on Twitter. https://twitter.com/PaulKawika
If you wish to unsubscribe from further emails from Peace Action, please write pmartin@peace-action.org with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
Editors Notes:
1. Text of the congressional letter:
March 16, 2011
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President,
We write to you to express our utmost support for your planned drawdown of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan beginning no later than July of this year. We, the undersigned members of Congress, believe the forthcoming reduction in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan must be significant and sizeable, and executed in an orderly fashion.
Our nation's economic and national security interests are not served by a policy of open-ended war in Afghanistan. At a time of severe economic distress, the war in Afghanistan is costing the United States more than $100 billion per year, excluding the long-term costs of care for returning military servicemembers. At the same time, military and intelligence officials agree that Al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan is diminished and that there will not be a military solution to resolve the current situation. It is simply unsustainable for our nation to maintain a costly, military-first strategy in Afghanistan.
A significant redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 will send a clear signal that the United States does not seek a permanent presence in Afghanistan. This transition will provide incentive for internal stakeholders to improve upon the political status quo, reduce corruption, and take meaningful steps toward the establishment of an effective, trustworthy, and inclusive governance structure. A meaningful start to withdrawal will also empower U.S. diplomatic engagement with regional and global stakeholders who share a common interest in the long-term stability of Afghanistan.
The majority of the American people overwhelmingly support a rapid shift toward withdrawal in Afghanistan. In fact, a Gallup Poll released on February 2, 2011 indicated that 72% of Americans favor action this year to "speed up the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan." Let us be clear. The redeployment of a minimal number of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July will not meet the expectations of Congress or the American people.
Mr. President, as you work to finally bring an end to the war in Iraq by the end of this year, we must commit ourselves to ensuring that our nation's military engagement in Afghanistan does not become the status quo. It is time to focus on securing a future of economic opportunity and prosperity for the American people and move swiftly to end America's longest war in Afghanistan.
Mr. President, we look forward to working with you to make that goal a reality.
Sincerely,
Full list of co-signers:
Rep. Joe Baca
Rep. Tammy Baldwin
Rep. Karen Bass
Rep. Lois Capps
Rep. Michael E. Capuano
Rep. Andre Carson
Rep. Yvette D. Clarke
Rep. Steve Cohen
Rep. John Conyers Jr.
Rep. Jerry F. Costello
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings
Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL)
Rep. Peter A. DeFazio
Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro
Rep. Theodore E. Deutch
Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (TN)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards
Rep. Keith Ellison
Rep. Sam Farr
Rep. Bob Filner
Rep. Barney Frank
Rep. Marcia L. Fudge
Rep. John Garamendi
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings
Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey
Rep. Mazie K. Hirono
Rep. Rush D. Holt
Rep. Michael M. Honda
Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
Rep. Hank Johnson Jr.
Rep. Timothy V. Johnson
Rep. Walter B. Jones
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. John B. Larson
Rep. John Lewis
Rep. Zoe Lofgren
Rep. Ben Ray Lujan
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney
Rep. Edward J. Markey
Rep. Doris O. Matsui
Rep. Jim McDermott
Rep. James P. McGovern
Rep. Michael H. Michaud
Rep. George Miller
Rep. Gwen Moore
Rep. James P. Moran
Rep. Christopher S. Murphy
Rep. Grace Napolitano
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Rep. John W. Olver
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr.
Rep. Ron Paul
Rep. Donald M. Payne
Rep. Chellie Pingree
Rep. Jared Polis
Rep. David E. Price
Rep. Mike Quigley
Rep, Charles B. Rangel
Rep. Laura Richardson
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard
Rep. Linda T. Sanchez
Rep. Loretta Sanchez
Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky
Rep. Bobby Scott
Rep. Jose E. Serrano
Rep. Albio Sires
Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter
Rep. Jackie Speier
Rep. Pete Stark
Rep. Mike Thompson (CA)
Rep. John F. Tierney
Rep. Edolphus Towns
Rep. Niki Tsongas
Rep. Maxine Waters
Rep. Anthony D. Weiner
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey
2. List of 31 organizations and individuals that supported the congressional letter:
Paul Kawika Martin
Policy & Political Director
Peace Action
Matthew Hoh
Director
Afghanistan Study Group
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
Robert Greenwald
Director
Brave New Foundation / Rethink Afghanistan
William C. Goodfellow
Executive Director
Center for International Policy
Medea Benjamin
Cofounder
CODEPINK: Women for Peace
John Isaacs
Executive Director
Council for a Livable World
Michael Kieschnick
Chief Executive Officer
CREDO
Carolyn Scarr
Program Coordinator
Ecumenical Peace Institute
Mark C. Johnson, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Jonathan W. Evans
Legislative Secretary for Foreign Policy
Friends Committee on National Legislation
James E. Winkler
General Secretary
General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church
Carleen Pickard
Associate Director
Global Exchange
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
Marie Dennis
Director
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Justin Ruben
Executive Director
MoveOn.org Political Action
Terry O'Neill
President
National Organization for Women
Simone Campbell
Executive Director
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Steve Clemons
Senior Fellow & Founder, American Strategy Program
New America Foundation*
David Krieger
President
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Dave Robinson
Executive Director
Pax Christi USA
Tom Hayden
Peace and Justice Resource Center
Peter Wilk, M.D.
Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
Tim Carpenter
Director
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)
Jean Stokan
Director, Justice Team
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas
Dr. Lisa Schirch
Director
3D Security Initiative
Rusti Eisenberg & Gael Murphy
Legislative Coordinators
United for Peace and Justice
Michael Eisenscher
National Coordinator
U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)
Susan Shaer
Executive Director
Women's Action for New Directions
Nancy Munger
Co-President
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, U.S. Section
Tom Andrews
National Director
Win Without War (a coalition of 40 national organizations)
*For identification purposes only
Peace Action is the United States' largest peace and disarmament organization with over 100,000 members and nearly 100 chapters in 34 states, works to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, promote government spending priorities that support human needs and encourage real security through international cooperation and human rights.
LATEST NEWS
Listen Live: US Supreme Court Hears Outrageous Argument That Trump Is Above the Law
"The American people deserve a Supreme Court that does not hesitate to declare that no one is above the law, including a former president," said one campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
After months of delay, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will hear oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss—an argument that legal experts say is both absurd and dangerous.
Listen live to the oral arguments, which are set to begin at 10:00 am ET:
Thursday's proceedings mark the high court's final argument of its current term, and pro-democracy campaigners are calling on the justices to quickly reject the former president's sweeping immunity claim so he can face trial on federal election subversion charges before his November rematch with President Joe Biden.
As Bloomberg's Greg Stohr noted earlier this week, Thursday's oral arguments give "Special Counsel Jack Smith only a narrow window to put the former president in front of a Washington jury before voters go to the polls on November 5."
"With the trial on hold until the high court rules," Stohr added, "Smith needs a clear-cut victory, and he needs it quickly."
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's right-wing majority has already handed Trump a temporary victory by stalling this case for months, allowing him to delay accountability for his criminal attempts to cling to power."
"With so much at stake for our democracy, the Supreme Court should rule swiftly and decisively in this case," said Eldridge. "Accountability delayed could mean accountability denied."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular