

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Today, the House of
Representatives is scheduled to vote on yet another supplemental
funding bill , this time providing nearly $80 billion to continue
waging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the total bill is now at $106
billion). And, just like they have done repeatedly in years past,
progressive Members of Congress should vote against this funding and
end our nation's descent into a disastrous quagmire in Afghanistan.
As I've noted before, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan unites our opponents within the country and region and makes cooperation by key regional players like Iran, Russia and China
far less likely with the prospect of tens of thousands of US troops on
their border. As for those with the most at stake - Afghan people - over 80% oppose an escalation of American troops in their country.
This is why 51 Members of Congress voted against the supplemental
war funding when it first appeared before the House in May. They
recognized that ending the war in Afghanistan is an essential part of
improving our national security and stabilizing central Asia, and acted
out of that conviction.
This past week, a number of progressive bloggers have been hard at
work to encourage those same Members of Congress to again vote no when
that funding reappears this afternoon. And, according to the citizen whip count kept by Jane Hamshire at FireDogLake,
they're very close to keeping the 39 no votes needed to defeat that
funding. After years of working and voting to end the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, these Congressional progressives have a chance to do just
that. The many reasons to end these wars have not changed, and so, too,
neither should their vote to oppose the supplemental funding.
Members of Congress will soon have another opportunity to build
pressure against the military escalation in Afghanistan by supporting a
bill by Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) that demands that the
administration establish what the president has publicly stated is needed in Afghanistan
- a military exit strategy. McGovern plans to introduce his bill as a
floor amendment to the House Armed Services Committee's Defense
Authorization bill when it hits the floor next week.
But, first thing first - today Members of the House should be voting no on the supplemental.
The Win Without War coalition planned to announce a coordinated day
of action today in support of Rep. McGovern's bill. With the last
minute scheduling of today's vote on the Supplemental, however, that
work is being delayed to avoid creating any confusion on Capitol Hill.
I hope my former colleagues will join the growing list of co-sponsors
of Rep. McGovern's bill. Today, however, their focus should be on
opposing the supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Today, the House of
Representatives is scheduled to vote on yet another supplemental
funding bill , this time providing nearly $80 billion to continue
waging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the total bill is now at $106
billion). And, just like they have done repeatedly in years past,
progressive Members of Congress should vote against this funding and
end our nation's descent into a disastrous quagmire in Afghanistan.
As I've noted before, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan unites our opponents within the country and region and makes cooperation by key regional players like Iran, Russia and China
far less likely with the prospect of tens of thousands of US troops on
their border. As for those with the most at stake - Afghan people - over 80% oppose an escalation of American troops in their country.
This is why 51 Members of Congress voted against the supplemental
war funding when it first appeared before the House in May. They
recognized that ending the war in Afghanistan is an essential part of
improving our national security and stabilizing central Asia, and acted
out of that conviction.
This past week, a number of progressive bloggers have been hard at
work to encourage those same Members of Congress to again vote no when
that funding reappears this afternoon. And, according to the citizen whip count kept by Jane Hamshire at FireDogLake,
they're very close to keeping the 39 no votes needed to defeat that
funding. After years of working and voting to end the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, these Congressional progressives have a chance to do just
that. The many reasons to end these wars have not changed, and so, too,
neither should their vote to oppose the supplemental funding.
Members of Congress will soon have another opportunity to build
pressure against the military escalation in Afghanistan by supporting a
bill by Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) that demands that the
administration establish what the president has publicly stated is needed in Afghanistan
- a military exit strategy. McGovern plans to introduce his bill as a
floor amendment to the House Armed Services Committee's Defense
Authorization bill when it hits the floor next week.
But, first thing first - today Members of the House should be voting no on the supplemental.
The Win Without War coalition planned to announce a coordinated day
of action today in support of Rep. McGovern's bill. With the last
minute scheduling of today's vote on the Supplemental, however, that
work is being delayed to avoid creating any confusion on Capitol Hill.
I hope my former colleagues will join the growing list of co-sponsors
of Rep. McGovern's bill. Today, however, their focus should be on
opposing the supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today, the House of
Representatives is scheduled to vote on yet another supplemental
funding bill , this time providing nearly $80 billion to continue
waging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the total bill is now at $106
billion). And, just like they have done repeatedly in years past,
progressive Members of Congress should vote against this funding and
end our nation's descent into a disastrous quagmire in Afghanistan.
As I've noted before, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan unites our opponents within the country and region and makes cooperation by key regional players like Iran, Russia and China
far less likely with the prospect of tens of thousands of US troops on
their border. As for those with the most at stake - Afghan people - over 80% oppose an escalation of American troops in their country.
This is why 51 Members of Congress voted against the supplemental
war funding when it first appeared before the House in May. They
recognized that ending the war in Afghanistan is an essential part of
improving our national security and stabilizing central Asia, and acted
out of that conviction.
This past week, a number of progressive bloggers have been hard at
work to encourage those same Members of Congress to again vote no when
that funding reappears this afternoon. And, according to the citizen whip count kept by Jane Hamshire at FireDogLake,
they're very close to keeping the 39 no votes needed to defeat that
funding. After years of working and voting to end the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, these Congressional progressives have a chance to do just
that. The many reasons to end these wars have not changed, and so, too,
neither should their vote to oppose the supplemental funding.
Members of Congress will soon have another opportunity to build
pressure against the military escalation in Afghanistan by supporting a
bill by Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) that demands that the
administration establish what the president has publicly stated is needed in Afghanistan
- a military exit strategy. McGovern plans to introduce his bill as a
floor amendment to the House Armed Services Committee's Defense
Authorization bill when it hits the floor next week.
But, first thing first - today Members of the House should be voting no on the supplemental.
The Win Without War coalition planned to announce a coordinated day
of action today in support of Rep. McGovern's bill. With the last
minute scheduling of today's vote on the Supplemental, however, that
work is being delayed to avoid creating any confusion on Capitol Hill.
I hope my former colleagues will join the growing list of co-sponsors
of Rep. McGovern's bill. Today, however, their focus should be on
opposing the supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.