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.
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.
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.
subsequent emphasis on the praised-by-the-angels sexiness of obama confirms the progressives' instinctive choice: it is better to have a demigod of beauty lead the nation than an absolutely savage progressive warrior who will break things and hurt people to TAKE THINGS from the ridiculously rich and GIVE THEM to the poor. in the final analysis, progressives want an uninvolved hollywood vibe, clean cool bipartisan. no muss, no fuss, no mortgage relief, no union protection, no cap-and-trade, no healthcare- and LOTS of photo ops getting on and off planes. because progressives can deplane in sunglasses just like obama; but they can't fight like dennis.
in short, research (possibly the most constructive contributor to this whole board for years), dennis has always been to good for us.
And the IMF doesn't need more money!
http://www.progress.org/cong.htm
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 environment-destroying prescriptions. In exchange for a bailout, the government of Guyana was forced to defund its environmental law enforcement, and accelerate deforestation. Why? ..........
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. .............
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.