Congress Should Vote No on War Funding Bill
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 Hamsher 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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Grow up and look at the situation realistically. The President inherited two wars and a world that is more unstable than it has been since World War II. No matter your opinion on the start of the wars it is unrealistic to just pull out and not have a complete meltdown of the region. Afghanistan and Pakistan are by far the most dangerous areas of the world and if we pull out immediately there will be fallout for generations to come. We are not going to build free liberal western democracies in these areas but a stable nation that doesn't murder its own people and neighbors.
It's not our country. We cannot control what will happen once we leave. a majority of Afghans want the us out in less than 5 years. We are losing hearts and minds, not winning.
Bring the Wars to an end.
A blind man could see that there is nothing to gain intervening in the religious wars that have been waged from the beginning of time.
Those who truly wish to be free will fight their own way out of oppression.
Let them be free.
Leave them to be.
voted for health care, union protection and strong environmental incentives- didn't you, progressiv
you got two wars, a depression economy, a flu scare and bipartisanship- didn't you...
you will next year vote for he same party and not get anything you were promised then either.
then in 2012 you will vote again for the same people and get nothing but war and recession.
when the revolution comes, the people will have to fight you just like they will fight any other capitalists, won't they progressives.
The Progressive democrats in the house are good people, Kucinich and such. Help them
i cried more than laughed when dennis said, referring to beanpole obama during a debate: "you can have somebody who has fought lifelong for progressive values- or you can have somebody tall." to fully appreciate that, you would have had to understand that the point was dead serious and- without any doubt whatsoever- the conclusion that the whole american progressive nation would- without the slightest hesitation- vote for somebody tall was certain and foregone.
subsequent emphasis on the praised-by
in short, research (possibly the most constructive contributor to this whole board for years), dennis has always been to good for us.
End the Wars!
And the IMF doesn't need more money!
http://www
1) The supplemental appropriation is NOT needed for the Asian bailout. The bailout of Asian borrowers has already taken place. The funds for the bailout came from existing IMF funds.
2) The IMF has ample funds RIGHT NOW at its disposal. Even after the loans to Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea, the IMF has $45 billion in liquid resources. It also has a credit line of $25 billion through the General Arrangements to Borrow. Furthermore, it has about $37 billion in gold reserves. ..........
3) The IMF often makes matters worse. The IMF has a record of making matters worse even as it carries out a bailout.. According to the New York Times, "[The] I.M.F. now admits tactics in Indonesia deepened the crisis... ........
4) The IMF imposes impoverishing conditions on foreign workers. In exchange for a bailout, the governments of developing countries must submit to a harsh regimen that impoverishes workers. In Haiti, for example, the IMF has pressured the Haitian government to abolish its minimum wage, which is only about $0.20 per hour.
5) The IMF imposes environmen
6) The IMF only listens to a tough Congress. If you want to change the way the IMF does business, this supplemental appropriation would be a setback. ..........
Agreed Tom, but also of significant importance is the tacked on $108 billion for the IMF; we need to say NO to the oppressive methods of the IMF in dealing with emerging/troubled nations [I hate to say it, but it would only be karmic justice for such methods to be imposed on the US, and we definitely DO NOT want that]. IMO, progressives in congress have more than enough valid reasons to reject this bill in good faith.
But emerging/troubled nations continue to go to the IMF for help because they have no place else to go. So cutting the IMF funding only replaces stringent conditions for assistance with no assistance at all.
Indeed, but the entire opposition to the appropriations that were passed was based on an attempt to get concessions from the IMF to modify their practices in that regard.
I dare say that very few--once reality had set in--would advocate such an agreement be entered into by the US, should the current crisis turn more dire and require an IMF loan for fiscal government survival.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
