Tuesday, June 29, 2010

ACTION NEEDED NOW to Stop US War Escalation Funding

From WarIsACrime dot org

Pelosi and Hoyer Trying to Pass War Escalation Funding By Thursday

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who will openly tell you he does whatever President Obama and Speaker Pelosi instruct, can bring the war escalation funding to the House floor despite the opposition of Appropriations Chairman David Obey. This is because the House passed the bill without the war escalation funding and sent it to the Senate, which has now sent it back to the House.

The current plan is to pass a single bill that includes both the war money and some lipstick (disaster relief, etc.). This will require keeping the lipstick thin enough to win some Republican votes and slathering it on thick enough to win a lot of Democratic votes (which can also be won through campaign funding, earmarks, committee positions, PR stunts, etc.).

One trick that will apparently be used to win Democrats' support is the inclusion of extra, meaningless votes, just for show, on the two components of the bill. They'll vote on the war escalation funding, and lots of Democrats will vote No. And they'll vote on the disaster relief, etc., and lots of Republicans will vote No. Both elements will pass, but nothing will have been done. Then they'll hold a meaningful vote on the whole bill, and lots of the Democrats who just moments before pretended to oppose war escalation will vote for the bill that funds it.

This can only work if Nancy Pelosi is correct in her belief that we're all a bunch of morons.

You'll be told that they've scaled back the war funding. What they've just done is remove the few crumbs that were intended for potentially useful civilian aid in Afghanistan. Meanwhile they've increased the military funding, which is all for escalating the war and therefore cannot plausible be squeezed into the same sentence with "scaled back."

You'll be told that separate votes were held and that your representative opposed the war funding. This is nonsense. The only way to oppose war funding is to try to stop it, which means voting against it no matter what else is included.

Call your Representative through the Capitol Hill switchboard: (202) 224-3121

They've just been asked by the House Majority Whip how they will vote in the pretend vote on the war funding alone and how they will vote on the actual bill with everything that's in it. Demand to know what answers they gave. Report those answers at defundwar dot org or GO here

If we can stop this thing through Thursday, we'll have a break over which to continue building opposition, a break during which more news (always bad) will keep coming in from Afghanistan, a July 4th break during which we will celebrate opposition to another foreign occupation.

If We Don't Stop War Funding, They'll Slash Social Security and Medicare

That's the plan which was pushed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer last week and by unsuccessful corporate pseudo rallies this weekend.

It's time to choose.

Don't Let a Bigger War Begin

When you call Congress also let them know that you will hold them accountable for any war they allow our country or Israel to launch against Iran.

Will they commit to ceasing to provide weapons to Israel?

Will they inform the Secretary of Defense that illegal war is grounds for impeachment?

Get the latest news at

dontattackiran dot org or GO here


Peace of the Action
Washington, D.C., July 4-17

Brown Bag Lunch Vigils
Everywhere, third Wednesday of every month

National Conference to Bring the Troops Home Now
Albany, July 23-25

PDA Grassroots Leadership Conference
Cleveland, July 23-25

Veterans for Peace National Convention
Portland, Maine, August 25-29



  1. General Petraeus hearing to put Afghanistan war, not him, in hot seat

    At General Petraeus’s confirmation hearing Tuesday, legislators are expected to endorse the respected commander but scrutinize the patchy progress of the nine-year Afghanistan war.

    Gen. David Petraeus’s confirmation as the new commander for the Afghanistan war is virtually assured at the Capitol Hill hearing Tuesday, but not before he takes tough questions from skeptical legislators about the wisdom of a nine-year war.

    June 29, 2010 – 1:56 p.m.
    Petraeus Defends July 2011 Target to Start U.S. Withdrawal From Afghanistan

    Army Gen. David H. Petraeus reaffirmed his support of a timeline for beginning a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, standing firm behind President Obama’s policy at his confirmation hearing Tuesday.

    “As the president has also indicated, July 2011 is not a date when we will be rapidly withdrawing our forces and ‘switching off the lights and closing the door behind us,’ ” he said.
    Click to learn more!Click here to learn more!Click to learn more!

    Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee sharply challenged Obama’s target for the start of a U.S. troop withdrawal, arguing that it sends a mixed message to U.S. allies and enemies alike.

    But Petraeus’ nomination to succeed ousted Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan was clearly on a fast track. Committee Chairman Carl Levin , D-Mich., said the panel could endorse Petraeus later Tuesday, speeding his nomination to the full Senate for confirmation this week.

    Petraeus said the surge of 30,000 troops ordered by the president is ahead of schedule and likely will be completed by the end of August. Currently, only about 60 percent of an additional 9,000 NATO personnel have been deployed to Afghanistan, but they too should be fully in place by late August.

    But he acknowledged the going has been difficult and is likely to remain so.

    “My sense is the tough fighting will continue. . . . The insurgents will fight back,” Petraeus said.

    In coupling the nearly completed troop surge with a July 2011 target date for the start of a U.S. troop drawdown, Petraeus emphasized that Obama was trying to convey two messages: “one of enormous additional commitment and one of urgency.”

    He said he believed the withdrawal date helped convey to Afghans the need to take over their own security promptly and build a sustainable government.

    Nonetheless, Petraeus said it is important that the date be seen “for what it is: the date when a process begins, in which reductions of U.S. forces must be based on the conditions at the time, and not a date when the U.S. heads for the exits.”

    CQ © 2007 All Rights Reserved | Congressional Quarterly Inc. 1255 22nd Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 | 202-419-8500