Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Democrats Including Sam Farr Vote To Fund The War, Response by Howard Zinn
"Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in
more funds to carry the war. It's as if, before the Civil War,
abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act." Howard Zinn
more funds to carry the war. It's as if, before the Civil War,
abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act." Howard Zinn
(Picture banner put up by Sam Farr's office in response to protest against his voting for military funding for the war.)
For People's information the only congress people that voted against
funding the war in this recent bill were John Barrow, Dan Boren, Lincoln
Davis, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Jim Marshall, Jim
Matheson, Michael McNulty, Michael Michaud, Gene Taylor, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, and Lynn Woolsey.
Sam Farr who has been the target of protest in the Santa Cruz area for
his support for general war funding also voted for funding the war this
time.
While Liberation News does not support any Democrats or Republicans on the principle that they are both capitalist and imperialist parties,
including the few Democrats that are mentioned that voted against funding the war, I thought that the following article was a good one in
explaining that voting for the latest Iraq bill was a vote for war.
For Liberation News, Steven Argue
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
Published on Saturday, March 24, 2007
by The Progressive
Are We Politicians or Citizens?
By Howard Zinn
As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from
Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration's "surge" of troops, and the Republicans' refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are
behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.
That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its
members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, "like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war."
Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in
more funds to carry the war. It's as if, before the Civil War,
abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has
forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not
to fall in meekly behind them.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever
politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who
speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully
timorous Congress.
Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the
case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house,
smashed everything in sight, and terrorized your children a timetable
for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing
civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at
all? If they are in fact doing the opposite -- provoking civil war,
hurting people, perpetuating violence -- they should withdraw as quickly as
ships and planes can carry them home.
It is four years since the United States invaded Iraq with a ferocious
bombardment, with "shock and awe." That is enough time to decide if the
presence of our troops is making the lives of the Iraqis better or
worse. The evidence is overwhelming. Since the invasion, hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis have died, and, according to the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, about two million Iraqis have left the country, and an almost
equal number are internal
refugees, forced out of their homes, seeking shelter elsewhere in the
country.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But his capture and death have
not made the lives of Iraqis better, as the U.S. occupation has created
chaos: no clean water, rising rates of hunger, 50 percent unemployment,
shortages of food, electricity, and fuel, a rise in child malnutrition
and infant deaths. Has the U.S. presence diminished violence? On the
contrary, by January 2007 the number of insurgent attacks has increased
dramatically to 180 a day.
The response of the Bush Administration to four years of failure is to
send more troops. To add more troops matches the definition of
fanaticism: If you find you're going in the wrong direction, redouble your
speed. It reminds me of the physician in Europe in the early nineteenth
century who decided that bloodletting would cure pneumonia. When that
didn't work, he concluded that not enough blood had been let.
The Congressional Democrats' proposal is to give more funds to the war,
and to set a timetable that will let the bloodletting go on for another
year or more. It is necessary, they say, to compromise, and some
anti-war people have been willing to go along. However, it is one thing to
compromise when you are immediately given part of what you are demanding,
if that can then be a springboard for getting more in the future. That
is the situation described in the recent movie The Wind That Shakes The
Barley, in which the Irish rebels against British rule are given a
compromise solution -- to have part of Ireland free, as the Irish Free
State. In the movie, Irish brother fights against brother over whether to
accept this compromise. But at least the acceptance of that compromise,
however short of justice, created the Irish Free State. The withdrawal
timetable proposed by the Democrats gets nothing tangible, only a
promise, and leaves the fulfilment of that promise in the hands of the Bush
Administration.
There have been similar dilemmas for the labor movement. Indeed, it is
a common occurrence that unions, fighting for a new contract, must
decide if they will accept an offer that gives them only part of what they
have demanded. It's always a difficult decision, but in almost all
cases, whether the compromise can be considered a victory or a defeat, the
workers have been given some thing palpable, improving their condition
to some degree. If they were offered only a promise of something in the
future, while continuing an unbearable situation
in the present, it would not be considered a compromise, but a sellout.
A union leader who said, "Take this, it's the best we can get' (which
is what the MoveOn people are saying about the Democrats' resolution)
would be hooted off the platform.
I am reminded of the situation at the 1964 Democratic National
Convention in Atlantic City, when the black delegation from Mississippi asked
to be seated, to represent the 40 percent black population of that
state. They were offered a "compromise" -- two nonvoting seats. "This is
tthe best we can get," some black leaders said. The Mississippians, led by
Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses,
turned it down, and thus held on to their fighting spirit, which later
brought them what they had asked for. That mantra -- "the best we can
get" -- is a recipe for corruption.
It is not easy, in the corrupting atmosphere of Washington, D.C., to
hold on firmly to the truth, to resist the temptation of capitulation
that presents itself as compromise. A few manage to do so. I think of
Barbara Lee, the one person in the House of Representatives who, in the
hysterical atmosphere of the days following 9/11, voted against the
resolution authorizing Bush to invade Afghanistan. Today, she is one of the
few who refuse to fund the Iraq War, insist on a prompt end to the war,
reject the dishonesty of a false compromise.
Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey,
and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender
their integrity, claiming to be "realistic."
We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to,
only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history
suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.
-----
Howard Zinn is the author, most recently, of "Power Governments
Cannot Suppress."
© 2007 The Progressive
For People's information the only congress people that voted against
funding the war in this recent bill were John Barrow, Dan Boren, Lincoln
Davis, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Jim Marshall, Jim
Matheson, Michael McNulty, Michael Michaud, Gene Taylor, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, and Lynn Woolsey.
Sam Farr who has been the target of protest in the Santa Cruz area for
his support for general war funding also voted for funding the war this
time.
While Liberation News does not support any Democrats or Republicans on the principle that they are both capitalist and imperialist parties,
including the few Democrats that are mentioned that voted against funding the war, I thought that the following article was a good one in
explaining that voting for the latest Iraq bill was a vote for war.
For Liberation News, Steven Argue
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
Published on Saturday, March 24, 2007
by The Progressive
Are We Politicians or Citizens?
By Howard Zinn
As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from
Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration's "surge" of troops, and the Republicans' refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are
behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.
That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its
members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, "like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war."
Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in
more funds to carry the war. It's as if, before the Civil War,
abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has
forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not
to fall in meekly behind them.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever
politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who
speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully
timorous Congress.
Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the
case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house,
smashed everything in sight, and terrorized your children a timetable
for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing
civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at
all? If they are in fact doing the opposite -- provoking civil war,
hurting people, perpetuating violence -- they should withdraw as quickly as
ships and planes can carry them home.
It is four years since the United States invaded Iraq with a ferocious
bombardment, with "shock and awe." That is enough time to decide if the
presence of our troops is making the lives of the Iraqis better or
worse. The evidence is overwhelming. Since the invasion, hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis have died, and, according to the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, about two million Iraqis have left the country, and an almost
equal number are internal
refugees, forced out of their homes, seeking shelter elsewhere in the
country.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But his capture and death have
not made the lives of Iraqis better, as the U.S. occupation has created
chaos: no clean water, rising rates of hunger, 50 percent unemployment,
shortages of food, electricity, and fuel, a rise in child malnutrition
and infant deaths. Has the U.S. presence diminished violence? On the
contrary, by January 2007 the number of insurgent attacks has increased
dramatically to 180 a day.
The response of the Bush Administration to four years of failure is to
send more troops. To add more troops matches the definition of
fanaticism: If you find you're going in the wrong direction, redouble your
speed. It reminds me of the physician in Europe in the early nineteenth
century who decided that bloodletting would cure pneumonia. When that
didn't work, he concluded that not enough blood had been let.
The Congressional Democrats' proposal is to give more funds to the war,
and to set a timetable that will let the bloodletting go on for another
year or more. It is necessary, they say, to compromise, and some
anti-war people have been willing to go along. However, it is one thing to
compromise when you are immediately given part of what you are demanding,
if that can then be a springboard for getting more in the future. That
is the situation described in the recent movie The Wind That Shakes The
Barley, in which the Irish rebels against British rule are given a
compromise solution -- to have part of Ireland free, as the Irish Free
State. In the movie, Irish brother fights against brother over whether to
accept this compromise. But at least the acceptance of that compromise,
however short of justice, created the Irish Free State. The withdrawal
timetable proposed by the Democrats gets nothing tangible, only a
promise, and leaves the fulfilment of that promise in the hands of the Bush
Administration.
There have been similar dilemmas for the labor movement. Indeed, it is
a common occurrence that unions, fighting for a new contract, must
decide if they will accept an offer that gives them only part of what they
have demanded. It's always a difficult decision, but in almost all
cases, whether the compromise can be considered a victory or a defeat, the
workers have been given some thing palpable, improving their condition
to some degree. If they were offered only a promise of something in the
future, while continuing an unbearable situation
in the present, it would not be considered a compromise, but a sellout.
A union leader who said, "Take this, it's the best we can get' (which
is what the MoveOn people are saying about the Democrats' resolution)
would be hooted off the platform.
I am reminded of the situation at the 1964 Democratic National
Convention in Atlantic City, when the black delegation from Mississippi asked
to be seated, to represent the 40 percent black population of that
state. They were offered a "compromise" -- two nonvoting seats. "This is
tthe best we can get," some black leaders said. The Mississippians, led by
Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses,
turned it down, and thus held on to their fighting spirit, which later
brought them what they had asked for. That mantra -- "the best we can
get" -- is a recipe for corruption.
It is not easy, in the corrupting atmosphere of Washington, D.C., to
hold on firmly to the truth, to resist the temptation of capitulation
that presents itself as compromise. A few manage to do so. I think of
Barbara Lee, the one person in the House of Representatives who, in the
hysterical atmosphere of the days following 9/11, voted against the
resolution authorizing Bush to invade Afghanistan. Today, she is one of the
few who refuse to fund the Iraq War, insist on a prompt end to the war,
reject the dishonesty of a false compromise.
Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey,
and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender
their integrity, claiming to be "realistic."
We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to,
only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history
suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.
-----
Howard Zinn is the author, most recently, of "Power Governments
Cannot Suppress."
© 2007 The Progressive
Add Your Comments
Comments (Hide Comments)
Tuesday Mar 27th, 2007 11:59 AM
i think zinn here is mixing his arguments up, as i think is the section of the anti-war movement that is dismayed that the dems voted the way they did.
if, as the poster of this article said, the dems are a tool of the capitalist system, then why put any energy into lobbying them? it's the least direct form of direct action i can imagine.
if, as i believe, those capitalist tools can be useful in marking incremental gains (like the civil rights act or federal parks or title IX), then this is an incremental gain that shows the way that our country's discourse has changed in the last 4 years.
yes i would like the troops home tomorrow. only a naive or disingenuous person thinks that's possible at this point. we don't have nearly enough folks in the streets to mandate something like that.
but when zinn uses the example of union organizers taking an incremental gain (which is why many of us anarchists hate union bureaucracy) as something that shows what the dems *didn't* do, he's off-target. we now have a deadline for the war to end. bush will veto it, but it's out there in public parlance as the will of congress. that's an incremental gain, folks.
if you hate that stuff, ignore what congress does. but if you're talking to your rep, don't pretend like they're going to become revolutionaries.
if, as the poster of this article said, the dems are a tool of the capitalist system, then why put any energy into lobbying them? it's the least direct form of direct action i can imagine.
if, as i believe, those capitalist tools can be useful in marking incremental gains (like the civil rights act or federal parks or title IX), then this is an incremental gain that shows the way that our country's discourse has changed in the last 4 years.
yes i would like the troops home tomorrow. only a naive or disingenuous person thinks that's possible at this point. we don't have nearly enough folks in the streets to mandate something like that.
but when zinn uses the example of union organizers taking an incremental gain (which is why many of us anarchists hate union bureaucracy) as something that shows what the dems *didn't* do, he's off-target. we now have a deadline for the war to end. bush will veto it, but it's out there in public parlance as the will of congress. that's an incremental gain, folks.
if you hate that stuff, ignore what congress does. but if you're talking to your rep, don't pretend like they're going to become revolutionaries.
Tuesday Mar 27th, 2007 1:19 PM
I'm not talking to my Rep, I'm talking to you.
Tuesday Mar 27th, 2007 1:39 PM
This my point:
Meddle claims, "we now have a deadline for the war to end."
Not really, we just have more funding for the same war that the Democrats voted for in the first place.
Incremental changes have never happened through supporting the Democrats, they have always happened through building a revolutionary alternative that doesn't let the Democrats off the hook for their crimes.
Meddle also claims, “yes i would like the troops home tomorrow. only a naive or disingenuous person thinks that's possible at this point. we don't have nearly enough folks in the streets to mandate something like that.”
The point is you build a serious movement in opposition to the pro-war Democratic and Republican Parties now by demanding now what they could do today. This doesn’t mean they are going to do it, but that is not the point. They should be exposed and resisted for their crimes. The movement that does so can take the steps necessary in the future to end the war and hopefully go further. You do this by telling the truth about those that got us into the war and are keeping us in it, not by kissing their asses.
While Meddle may want to kiss the asses of the likes of Sam Farr because he sees no alternative to him, I see the power of people as the alternative to his ilk.
Meddle claims, "we now have a deadline for the war to end."
Not really, we just have more funding for the same war that the Democrats voted for in the first place.
Incremental changes have never happened through supporting the Democrats, they have always happened through building a revolutionary alternative that doesn't let the Democrats off the hook for their crimes.
Meddle also claims, “yes i would like the troops home tomorrow. only a naive or disingenuous person thinks that's possible at this point. we don't have nearly enough folks in the streets to mandate something like that.”
The point is you build a serious movement in opposition to the pro-war Democratic and Republican Parties now by demanding now what they could do today. This doesn’t mean they are going to do it, but that is not the point. They should be exposed and resisted for their crimes. The movement that does so can take the steps necessary in the future to end the war and hopefully go further. You do this by telling the truth about those that got us into the war and are keeping us in it, not by kissing their asses.
While Meddle may want to kiss the asses of the likes of Sam Farr because he sees no alternative to him, I see the power of people as the alternative to his ilk.
Tuesday Mar 27th, 2007 6:37 PM
Perhaps we should rember the laws of war that the U.S. is signed on to. The anti-fascist Covenant the Geneva Convenstions of War (1949) stipulate the U.S. is involved in these three obvious war crimes, 1) targeting and killing civilians, 2) torturing and killing prisoners of war, such as Abu-Graib, Guantanamo, and the hundreds of C.I.A. imperial detention centres of extrordinary rendition flights to torture globally, 3) collective punishment, such as the shock and awe against hundreds of cities and towns which are reduced to rubble simply because the people there have legitamately taken sides and resisted the illegal U.S. military invasion and occupation of their country. Next we ought to look at the Nuremburg Trials and the United Nations Charter.
These two anti-fascist covenants describe the planning and doing of aggressive war against another country such as UN members Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, and Iran as the supreme war crime in the world describing it as the worst war crime because it sets of all the worst practice possible on the planet for generations to come. Now of course there is the U.S. constitution to refer to in which it says that high crimes and misdemeanors are reasons to impeach the president and all those doing those high crimes. It is evident by the anti-fascist covenants that there is no worse crime in the world than planning and carrying through aggressive war, it therefore is the duty of the citizens of the United States to uphold their constitution and Impeach the high executive starting with the president, and as it is the worlds worst crime high, low or otherwise it points to immediate action before it is too late. Workers of the world, unite and live up to your countries just laws for peace and justice and to the worlds international laws that Bushco is certainly ciminally assaulting globally.
These two anti-fascist covenants describe the planning and doing of aggressive war against another country such as UN members Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, and Iran as the supreme war crime in the world describing it as the worst war crime because it sets of all the worst practice possible on the planet for generations to come. Now of course there is the U.S. constitution to refer to in which it says that high crimes and misdemeanors are reasons to impeach the president and all those doing those high crimes. It is evident by the anti-fascist covenants that there is no worse crime in the world than planning and carrying through aggressive war, it therefore is the duty of the citizens of the United States to uphold their constitution and Impeach the high executive starting with the president, and as it is the worlds worst crime high, low or otherwise it points to immediate action before it is too late. Workers of the world, unite and live up to your countries just laws for peace and justice and to the worlds international laws that Bushco is certainly ciminally assaulting globally.
Thursday Mar 29th, 2007 10:37 PM
Could this be the same Sam Farr that was 'speaking out against the war' on March 17th?
"Sat, Mar 17, 11:00am RALLY AND MARCH AGAINST WAR. Speak out against the war. 4 years! Congressmember Sam Farr and others. Santa Cruz County Courthouse, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz. Contact Sherry for other info."
Is this really the same Sam Farr that has been invited as the guest speaker at this year's "Unsung Heroes Dinner"?
"Sat, Apr 14, 6:00pm CUBA CARAVAN Unsung Heroes Dinner with Congressmember Sam Farr as guest speaker. Event will honor five of Santa Cruz County's "unsung heroes" who have worked in solidarity with Latinos and the people of Latin America. Fundraiser: $20-$30. For tickets and reservations, call 465-8272 or contact the Cuba Study Group."
Why is the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) of Santa Cruz still supporting this guy?
http://wilpf.got.net/calendar.html
"WILPF works to achieve through peaceful means world disarmament; full rights for women; racial and economic justice; an end to all forms of violence; and to establish those political, social, and psychological conditions which can assure peace, freedom, and justice for all."
WILPF needs to stop kissing up to Sam Farr.
"Sat, Mar 17, 11:00am RALLY AND MARCH AGAINST WAR. Speak out against the war. 4 years! Congressmember Sam Farr and others. Santa Cruz County Courthouse, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz. Contact Sherry for other info."
Is this really the same Sam Farr that has been invited as the guest speaker at this year's "Unsung Heroes Dinner"?
"Sat, Apr 14, 6:00pm CUBA CARAVAN Unsung Heroes Dinner with Congressmember Sam Farr as guest speaker. Event will honor five of Santa Cruz County's "unsung heroes" who have worked in solidarity with Latinos and the people of Latin America. Fundraiser: $20-$30. For tickets and reservations, call 465-8272 or contact the Cuba Study Group."
Why is the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) of Santa Cruz still supporting this guy?
http://wilpf.got.net/calendar.html
"WILPF works to achieve through peaceful means world disarmament; full rights for women; racial and economic justice; an end to all forms of violence; and to establish those political, social, and psychological conditions which can assure peace, freedom, and justice for all."
WILPF needs to stop kissing up to Sam Farr.
Sunday Apr 1st, 2007 6:33 AM
Weekend Edition
March 31 / April 1, 2007
The Fake Fight Over the Iraq War
That Was an Antiwar Vote?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Has the end of America's war on Iraq been brought closer by the recent vote in the House of Representatives? On March 23, the full House voted 218 to 212 to set a timeline on the withdrawal of US troops, with September 1, 2008, as the putative date after which war funding might be restricted to withdrawal purposes only. It's not exactly a stringent deadline. It only requires Bush to seek Congressional approval before extending the occupation and spending new funds to do so.
On Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi's website we find her portrait of what US troops will be doing in Iraq following this withdrawal or "redeployment," should it occur late next year on the bill's schedule. "US troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations and training of Iraqi Security Forces." But does this not bear an eerie resemblance to Bush's presurge war plan? Will the troops being redeployed out of Iraq even come home? No, says Pelosi, as does Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. These troops will go to Afghanistan to battle al Qaeda.
So the bill essentially adopts and enforces Bush's war plan and attendant "benchmarks" as spelled out in his January 10 speech. On March 27, the Senate voted 50-48 to start withdrawal in March 2008, said schedule being nonbinding on the President. At any rate, Bush has promised to veto all schedules for withdrawal coming out of Congress. Meanwhile the war goes on, with a supplemental, Democrat-approved $124 billion, more than Bush himself requested. As Congress considers the half trillion dollar FY 2008 Pentagon budget, there is no sign that the Democratic leadership will permit any serious attack on further war funding.
Thus when it comes to the actual war, which has led to the bloody disintegration of Iraqi society, the deaths of up to 5,000 Iraqis a month, the death and mutilation of US soldiers every day, nothing at all has happened since the Democrats rode to victory in November courtesy of popular revulsion in America against the war. Bush's reaction to this censure at the polls was to appoint a new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, to oversee the troop surge in Baghdad and Anbar province. The Democrats voted unanimously to approve Petraeus and now they have okayed the money for the surge. Bush hinted that he would like to widen the war to Iran. Nancy Pelosi, chastened by catcalls at the annual AIPAC convention, swiftly abandoned all talk of compelling Bush to seek congressional authorization to make war on Iran.
Although nothing of any significance actually happened on March 23, to read liberal commentators one would think we'd witnessed some profound upheaval, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi's skillful uniting of the various Democratic factions. What she accomplished in practice was the neutering of the antiwar faction. In the end only eight Democrats (plus two Republicans) voted against the Supplemental Appropriation out of opposition to the war. The balance of 202 no votes came from Republicans who opposed Pelosi's bill as anti-Bush and antiwar. So, in Congress 420 representatives officially have no problem with the war in Iraq continuing until the eve of the next election. Ten are foursquare against it, which is more or less where Congress has always been, in terms of committed naysayers.
Antiwar forces in Congress are now weaker. Take Sam Farr of Santa Cruz and Peter DeFazio of Eugene, both Congressmen with large progressive constituencies. In the last Republican-controlled Congress they were stout opponents of the war, voting against authorization to invade and money for the war thereafter. No longer. Pelosi handed Farr bailout money for his district's spinach growers and DeFazio got funding for schools and libraries. Who knows? Perhaps a few dollars of the latter will go to wheelchair access for the paraplegics who will come home from Iraq over the next sixteen months, maimed in the war for which DeFazio just voted more money.
Seeking to explain his yes vote for Pelosi's war-funding bill, Farr issued a press release saying, "This bill brings our troops home." But he also told the San Francisco Chronicle, "They want to go gung-ho. They want to escalate in Iraq. So what would our 'no' votes mean?"
Mr. Farr, they would have meant more votes against the war, and had there been four more holdouts against Pelosi's palm-greasing, these no votes would have monkey-wrenched her bill, thus demonstrating that it is impossible to get a majority in the House of Representatives to endorse a piece of fakery designed to deceive the very people who put the Democrats back in power...
[article continues at http://www.counterpunch.org...]
March 31 / April 1, 2007
The Fake Fight Over the Iraq War
That Was an Antiwar Vote?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Has the end of America's war on Iraq been brought closer by the recent vote in the House of Representatives? On March 23, the full House voted 218 to 212 to set a timeline on the withdrawal of US troops, with September 1, 2008, as the putative date after which war funding might be restricted to withdrawal purposes only. It's not exactly a stringent deadline. It only requires Bush to seek Congressional approval before extending the occupation and spending new funds to do so.
On Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi's website we find her portrait of what US troops will be doing in Iraq following this withdrawal or "redeployment," should it occur late next year on the bill's schedule. "US troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations and training of Iraqi Security Forces." But does this not bear an eerie resemblance to Bush's presurge war plan? Will the troops being redeployed out of Iraq even come home? No, says Pelosi, as does Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. These troops will go to Afghanistan to battle al Qaeda.
So the bill essentially adopts and enforces Bush's war plan and attendant "benchmarks" as spelled out in his January 10 speech. On March 27, the Senate voted 50-48 to start withdrawal in March 2008, said schedule being nonbinding on the President. At any rate, Bush has promised to veto all schedules for withdrawal coming out of Congress. Meanwhile the war goes on, with a supplemental, Democrat-approved $124 billion, more than Bush himself requested. As Congress considers the half trillion dollar FY 2008 Pentagon budget, there is no sign that the Democratic leadership will permit any serious attack on further war funding.
Thus when it comes to the actual war, which has led to the bloody disintegration of Iraqi society, the deaths of up to 5,000 Iraqis a month, the death and mutilation of US soldiers every day, nothing at all has happened since the Democrats rode to victory in November courtesy of popular revulsion in America against the war. Bush's reaction to this censure at the polls was to appoint a new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, to oversee the troop surge in Baghdad and Anbar province. The Democrats voted unanimously to approve Petraeus and now they have okayed the money for the surge. Bush hinted that he would like to widen the war to Iran. Nancy Pelosi, chastened by catcalls at the annual AIPAC convention, swiftly abandoned all talk of compelling Bush to seek congressional authorization to make war on Iran.
Although nothing of any significance actually happened on March 23, to read liberal commentators one would think we'd witnessed some profound upheaval, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi's skillful uniting of the various Democratic factions. What she accomplished in practice was the neutering of the antiwar faction. In the end only eight Democrats (plus two Republicans) voted against the Supplemental Appropriation out of opposition to the war. The balance of 202 no votes came from Republicans who opposed Pelosi's bill as anti-Bush and antiwar. So, in Congress 420 representatives officially have no problem with the war in Iraq continuing until the eve of the next election. Ten are foursquare against it, which is more or less where Congress has always been, in terms of committed naysayers.
Antiwar forces in Congress are now weaker. Take Sam Farr of Santa Cruz and Peter DeFazio of Eugene, both Congressmen with large progressive constituencies. In the last Republican-controlled Congress they were stout opponents of the war, voting against authorization to invade and money for the war thereafter. No longer. Pelosi handed Farr bailout money for his district's spinach growers and DeFazio got funding for schools and libraries. Who knows? Perhaps a few dollars of the latter will go to wheelchair access for the paraplegics who will come home from Iraq over the next sixteen months, maimed in the war for which DeFazio just voted more money.
Seeking to explain his yes vote for Pelosi's war-funding bill, Farr issued a press release saying, "This bill brings our troops home." But he also told the San Francisco Chronicle, "They want to go gung-ho. They want to escalate in Iraq. So what would our 'no' votes mean?"
Mr. Farr, they would have meant more votes against the war, and had there been four more holdouts against Pelosi's palm-greasing, these no votes would have monkey-wrenched her bill, thus demonstrating that it is impossible to get a majority in the House of Representatives to endorse a piece of fakery designed to deceive the very people who put the Democrats back in power...
[article continues at http://www.counterpunch.org...]
Sunday Apr 1st, 2007 12:37 PM
the full URL for the rest of the CP article above is
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03312007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03312007.html
Monday Apr 2nd, 2007 12:20 PM
From: "Gressel, Gal" <Gal.Gressel [at] mail.house.gov>
To: "'rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com'" <rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: response to your questions
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:01:24 -0400
Dear Mr. Norse, I have compiled the following in response to your questions
yesterday.
Military budget
Here is Congressman Farr's voting history on the last 5 Department of
Defense (DoD) military appropriation bills.
FY2003, HR5010 voted Yes
FY2004, HR2658 voted No
FY2005, HR4613 voted Yes
FY2006, HR2863 voted No
FY2007, HR5631 voted Yes
To get a detailed view of who voted yes/no on these bills:
1) Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html
<http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html>
2) You need to search under sessions 107-110 (or just check all)
3) Type in the bill you are interested in (e.g. H.R. 5010) and hit search
4) Select the correct bill, it will say the bill title, with "ENR" at the
end. This means that it was agreed to by both the House and the Senate.
5) Click "Bill Summary and Status", then
6) "Major Congressional Actions".
7) Based on your question, it sounds like you will want to view the last
vote before the president signed it. This should be titled "Conference
report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by
the Yeas and Nays..." --> click here. Now you can view who voted yes/no.
Military Budget going to Iraq
I was hoping that there was a report available that would identify funds
from the general military budget going to Iraq but there isn't, so I don't
really have any information on that.
Iran
Sam has made the following efforts to prevent the U.S. from attacking Iran:
1) He has cosponsored H Con Res 33,
"Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate
military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from
Congress."
H Con Res 33 reinforces the need for the President to seek congressional
authority prior to taking military action against Iran.
2) He has cosponsored HR 771, the Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act
HR 771 prohibits funds available to the DOD or any other federal agency from
being used to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime
change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the
absence of an imminent threat.
I hope that this information helps,
Gal
==============
Gal Gressel
Congressional Aide
Rep. Sam Farr (CA-17)
831.429.1976
To: "'rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com'" <rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: response to your questions
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:01:24 -0400
Dear Mr. Norse, I have compiled the following in response to your questions
yesterday.
Military budget
Here is Congressman Farr's voting history on the last 5 Department of
Defense (DoD) military appropriation bills.
FY2003, HR5010 voted Yes
FY2004, HR2658 voted No
FY2005, HR4613 voted Yes
FY2006, HR2863 voted No
FY2007, HR5631 voted Yes
To get a detailed view of who voted yes/no on these bills:
1) Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html
<http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html>
2) You need to search under sessions 107-110 (or just check all)
3) Type in the bill you are interested in (e.g. H.R. 5010) and hit search
4) Select the correct bill, it will say the bill title, with "ENR" at the
end. This means that it was agreed to by both the House and the Senate.
5) Click "Bill Summary and Status", then
6) "Major Congressional Actions".
7) Based on your question, it sounds like you will want to view the last
vote before the president signed it. This should be titled "Conference
report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by
the Yeas and Nays..." --> click here. Now you can view who voted yes/no.
Military Budget going to Iraq
I was hoping that there was a report available that would identify funds
from the general military budget going to Iraq but there isn't, so I don't
really have any information on that.
Iran
Sam has made the following efforts to prevent the U.S. from attacking Iran:
1) He has cosponsored H Con Res 33,
"Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate
military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from
Congress."
H Con Res 33 reinforces the need for the President to seek congressional
authority prior to taking military action against Iran.
2) He has cosponsored HR 771, the Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act
HR 771 prohibits funds available to the DOD or any other federal agency from
being used to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime
change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the
absence of an imminent threat.
I hope that this information helps,
Gal
==============
Gal Gressel
Congressional Aide
Rep. Sam Farr (CA-17)
831.429.1976
Monday Apr 2nd, 2007 12:26 PM
It is news to me (and apparently was not known previously by his aides) that Farr had voted against the whole military budget for FY 2004 and FY 2006 (presumably passed in 2003 and 2005 respectively). I have repeatedly denounced Farr for voting against the Supplemental Military Appropriations (for Iraq) each year (after local pressure in 2002) but voting for the broader military appropriation.
I was inaccurate and apologize for that.
When I spoke with him at the anti-war rally last month, he insisted that he had voted against the broader budget. And he was telling the truth.
Still, he didn't vote against it last year. He hasn't committed himself to voting against it this year. And (worst of all) he voted FOR the supplemental this year with the bogus "withdrawal schedule" involved.
He needs to be pressured big-time to return to his previous stand of voting against both. Another visit to his office en masse might be helpful here.
Anyone interested?
I was inaccurate and apologize for that.
When I spoke with him at the anti-war rally last month, he insisted that he had voted against the broader budget. And he was telling the truth.
Still, he didn't vote against it last year. He hasn't committed himself to voting against it this year. And (worst of all) he voted FOR the supplemental this year with the bogus "withdrawal schedule" involved.
He needs to be pressured big-time to return to his previous stand of voting against both. Another visit to his office en masse might be helpful here.
Anyone interested?
Wednesday Apr 4th, 2007 11:36 AM
Robert says, "He [Sam Farr] needs to be pressured big-time to return to his previous stand of voting against both [general and supplemental appropriations for war]. Another visit to his office en masse might be helpful here." And asks if anyone is interested.
I apologize that I was unable to coordinate continued actions at Farr's office. I became ill, and on top of that I am just way too busy lately.
But I would like to clarify that my goal has not been to pressure Sam Farr, but to discredit Sam Farr and his entire capitalist pro-war party. Liberals that rely on the Democrat Party have no solutions for the current war, because the Democrat Party has been backing this war from the beginning. As opposed to liberals, revolutionaries see the power of the people as the alternative to relying on the two ruling parties of the extremely wealthy.
Instead of relying on the Democrats for anything we call for ending the war through building the mass movement in the streets; striking against arms producers; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks; and building towards a general strike against the war. Likewise we support the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war. We support students, such as those at UC Santa Cruz that have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. And we call for building the revolutionary party and people’s movement with the goal of overthrowing the dictatorial power of the capitalist class in the United States.
As opposed to Sam Farr we:
1. Opposes Sam Farr’s votes for the general war budgets as well as his votes for the supplemental. These are votes for war.
2. Support the use of billions of dollars currently used for war to be used for the purposes healthcare, education, housing, and an emergency program to try to save the planet from global warming.
3. Opposes Sam Farr’s votes for aid to the rightwing death squad government of Colombia, a government that routinely murders unionists and leftists.
4. Support the struggles of unionists for decent wages and benefits and call for a doubling of the minimum wage in the United States.
5. Oppose Sam Farr’s failure to act in a meaningful way against global warming. We demand the nationalization of the oil industry to take the profit out of global warming and war.
6. Support the use of society’s resources in meeting human and environmental needs instead of for corporate profit.
The Sam Farr's of the world, and their corporate backers, should be pressured, but more importantly they need to be overthrown.
I apologize that I was unable to coordinate continued actions at Farr's office. I became ill, and on top of that I am just way too busy lately.
But I would like to clarify that my goal has not been to pressure Sam Farr, but to discredit Sam Farr and his entire capitalist pro-war party. Liberals that rely on the Democrat Party have no solutions for the current war, because the Democrat Party has been backing this war from the beginning. As opposed to liberals, revolutionaries see the power of the people as the alternative to relying on the two ruling parties of the extremely wealthy.
Instead of relying on the Democrats for anything we call for ending the war through building the mass movement in the streets; striking against arms producers; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks; and building towards a general strike against the war. Likewise we support the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war. We support students, such as those at UC Santa Cruz that have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. And we call for building the revolutionary party and people’s movement with the goal of overthrowing the dictatorial power of the capitalist class in the United States.
As opposed to Sam Farr we:
1. Opposes Sam Farr’s votes for the general war budgets as well as his votes for the supplemental. These are votes for war.
2. Support the use of billions of dollars currently used for war to be used for the purposes healthcare, education, housing, and an emergency program to try to save the planet from global warming.
3. Opposes Sam Farr’s votes for aid to the rightwing death squad government of Colombia, a government that routinely murders unionists and leftists.
4. Support the struggles of unionists for decent wages and benefits and call for a doubling of the minimum wage in the United States.
5. Oppose Sam Farr’s failure to act in a meaningful way against global warming. We demand the nationalization of the oil industry to take the profit out of global warming and war.
6. Support the use of society’s resources in meeting human and environmental needs instead of for corporate profit.
The Sam Farr's of the world, and their corporate backers, should be pressured, but more importantly they need to be overthrown.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$ 117.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network