Denying The People's Will On Iraq
This column was written by the editors of the Nation.
It's beginning to look like Congress should take lessons in democracy from the Iraqi Parliament. The majority of Iraqi parliamentarians have signed a draft bill that would establish a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Iraqi politicians are responding to popular sentiment in their country, as reflected by polls that show 65 percent of Iraqis want the occupation to end. Would that American politicians were as responsive to public opinion here; a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 64 percent of Americans want out. But the Democratic majority in Congress is so razor-thin that in late May it finally gave up the attempt to pass a funding bill establishing a timeline for withdrawal. The caucus was further undermined by internal disunity, as the defection of Carl Levin, Steny Hoyer and others prevented House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid from forcing a timeline on the Administration.
At least Pelosi and Reid are voting right. When the House on May 10 considered Jim McGovern's proposal to fund redeployment of U.S. forces and contractors from Iraq on a schedule beginning no later than ninety days from the measure's enactment, the 171 yes votes included that of Pelosi. When the Senate voted May 16 on whether to consider Russ Feingold's plan to set an exit timeline, the twenty-nine supporters included Reid.
Thanks to Senator Chris Dodd, who cut television ads for his long-shot presidential bid that highlighted his support for Feingold's measure — and in clear recognition of public antiwar sentiment — three Senate contenders for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, scrambled to join their colleagues in backing the timeline. But in the face of fears that they would be accused of "not supporting the troops," and with Republicans remaining loyal to Bush, House Democrats dropped the timeline and gave Bush a spending bill with only a few loose benchmarks for "progress," which he will be allowed to waive. As Feingold said, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action."
McGovern and Feingold recognized long ago, and more and more Congressional Democrats now understand, that only a decision by the House and Senate to use the power of the purse will end this war — a war that, as Stephen Glain's article on the refugee crisis powerfully illustrates, is spreading misery across the Middle East. Iraqis are fleeing not only continuing sectarian bloodshed but, as Nick Turse's article shows, a U.S. counterinsurgency and air war that are taking an unconscionable number of civilian lives.
Pelosi and Reid are right when they say this is not the end of the fight over money for Iraq. Congress will be looking at another spending measure in the summer or early fall. The problem is that there are still prominent Democrats who don't get it. Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin voted against the Feingold bill, attacking it on the Senate floor in language that sounded like a White House "support the President to support the troops" talking point. Particularly disappointing were some of the new Democratic senators, like Jim Webb and Jon Tester. In the House, majority leader Steny Hoyer was joined by key Representatives like Mark Udall, John Spratt and Ron Kind in voting with Republicans to block the McGovern amendment.
Make no mistake, Levin, Hoyer and others like them in the Democratic caucus are slowing movement toward unity in support of withdrawal. They are undermining the ability of their party to clarify the lines of debate and force wavering Republicans — like Senators Susan Collins, John Sununu and Norm Coleman — to either take an antiwar stand or face re-election defeat in 2008. These unacceptable votes should raise the ire of antiwar activists and the American people, and the members of Congress who cast them must be held accountable for extending the war. Americans must make it clear that when the next chance comes to use the power of the purse, our representatives should follow the will of the people and call a halt to Bush's disastrous war.
By the editors of The Nation
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation
The Nation It's beginning to look like Congress should take lessons in democracy from the Iraqi Parliament. The majority of Iraqi parliamentarians have signed a draft bill that would establish a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Iraqi politicians are responding to popular sentiment in their country, as reflected by polls that show 65 percent of Iraqis want the occupation to end. Would that American politicians were as responsive to public opinion here; a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 64 percent of Americans want out. But the Democratic majority in Congress is so razor-thin that in late May it finally gave up the attempt to pass a funding bill establishing a timeline for withdrawal. The caucus was further undermined by internal disunity, as the defection of Carl Levin, Steny Hoyer and others prevented House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid from forcing a timeline on the Administration.
At least Pelosi and Reid are voting right. When the House on May 10 considered Jim McGovern's proposal to fund redeployment of U.S. forces and contractors from Iraq on a schedule beginning no later than ninety days from the measure's enactment, the 171 yes votes included that of Pelosi. When the Senate voted May 16 on whether to consider Russ Feingold's plan to set an exit timeline, the twenty-nine supporters included Reid.
Thanks to Senator Chris Dodd, who cut television ads for his long-shot presidential bid that highlighted his support for Feingold's measure — and in clear recognition of public antiwar sentiment — three Senate contenders for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, scrambled to join their colleagues in backing the timeline. But in the face of fears that they would be accused of "not supporting the troops," and with Republicans remaining loyal to Bush, House Democrats dropped the timeline and gave Bush a spending bill with only a few loose benchmarks for "progress," which he will be allowed to waive. As Feingold said, "There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action."
McGovern and Feingold recognized long ago, and more and more Congressional Democrats now understand, that only a decision by the House and Senate to use the power of the purse will end this war — a war that, as Stephen Glain's article on the refugee crisis powerfully illustrates, is spreading misery across the Middle East. Iraqis are fleeing not only continuing sectarian bloodshed but, as Nick Turse's article shows, a U.S. counterinsurgency and air war that are taking an unconscionable number of civilian lives.
Pelosi and Reid are right when they say this is not the end of the fight over money for Iraq. Congress will be looking at another spending measure in the summer or early fall. The problem is that there are still prominent Democrats who don't get it. Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin voted against the Feingold bill, attacking it on the Senate floor in language that sounded like a White House "support the President to support the troops" talking point. Particularly disappointing were some of the new Democratic senators, like Jim Webb and Jon Tester. In the House, majority leader Steny Hoyer was joined by key Representatives like Mark Udall, John Spratt and Ron Kind in voting with Republicans to block the McGovern amendment.
Make no mistake, Levin, Hoyer and others like them in the Democratic caucus are slowing movement toward unity in support of withdrawal. They are undermining the ability of their party to clarify the lines of debate and force wavering Republicans — like Senators Susan Collins, John Sununu and Norm Coleman — to either take an antiwar stand or face re-election defeat in 2008. These unacceptable votes should raise the ire of antiwar activists and the American people, and the members of Congress who cast them must be held accountable for extending the war. Americans must make it clear that when the next chance comes to use the power of the purse, our representatives should follow the will of the people and call a halt to Bush's disastrous war.
By the editors of The Nation
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation
Now about GW. For about 9 months he made little to no public mention of the threat of terrorism. He made no move to address the U.S.S. Cole tragedy. Under his watch, we were seeing disasters striking of any size, shape and magnitude, including a submarine hitting a Japanese fishing boat that had a lot of students on board. February 2001, a 6. something magnitude quake, epicenter Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia... One could go on and on about GW's particular dismissiveness, domestic policy wise of how to treat Americans who elected him to office. Literally, his contempt for the sort of good government that the general American citizenry ought to be able to depend on. Katrina woke people up. But the earthquake in Western Washington was the first true warning sign of worse things to come in this administration. The "I don't care about you" Bush administration. That included ignoring terrorism until 9/11/2001.
Posted by janem4
I know it's hard for right wing nuts like yourself to grasp the basic's of politic's! But, what has Bush's method done for terrorism? Literally nothing! Except make it 1000% worse! He has two wars going now that he is losing. The whole world hates our guts! We were safer in 2001 than we are today. Bush has diverted funds from protecting the US to his ill gotten war in Iraq. Because you Chickenhawks can't get it out of your muddled brains that a shooting war doesn't solve the terrorism problem! It just adds to it with more hatred and venom for the US. We are more vulnerable today than we were then. And still people like you don't get it! Clinton fought terrorism like it should be fought(and if Bush had a brain in his empty head he would)! Not with an Army but intelligence, law enforcement, courts and etc. That is literally the only way terrorism will be solved. But, I realize if all you Chickenhawks don't have a war that someone's getting killed in going. You don't think anyone is doing anything! Unless you see the body bags come home! So, when I hear one of you Chickenhawks spouting off I just consider the pathetic source it's coming from!
This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.
CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!
HERE ARE SOME OF AIPAC DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS! CONTACT THEM!
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
St
eny Hoyer
http://hoyer.house.gov/contact/
READ AIPAC BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN POLITICIANS!
http://www.aipac.org/for
ms/join_aipacClubs.htm
REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!
EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS IN LEBANON, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/ar
ticles/070305fa_fact_hersh
50 years of American involvement in the Middle East ENOUGH it has nothing worth one more American Life!
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY STANDS IN NEW YORK HARBOR AND IS NOT KNEELING IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
Posted by tbweb at 12:36 AM : May 27, 2007
Another aspect that I admire about the British Parlamentary system is the requirement that the PM face the MP's weekly for their question and answer session.
Dubya would have been laughed out of the docket on the first go around if we had such a requirement.
Of course, in some areas, esp. in the South, Blue-Dogs are often the lesser of two evils so they have little choice.
But a reevaluation is warranted since Blue-Dogs often give the GOP the advantage when writing & voting on legislation.
This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.
CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!
HERE ARE SOME OF AIPAC DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS! UP FOR REELECTION CONTACT THEM!
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Steny Hoyer
http://hoyer.house.gov/contact/
READ AIPAC BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN POLITICIANS!
http://www.aipac.org/for
ms/join_aipacClubs.htm
REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!
EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS IN LEBANON, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/ar
ticles/070305fa_fact_hersh
50 years of American involvement in the Middle East ENOUGH it has nothing worth one more American Life!
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY STANDS IN NEW YORK HARBOR AND IS NOT KNEELING IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
Bush administration is Hated outside the bubble of Washington Republicans That is why they are covered in security and only speak at Military bases. If Bush went out in Real Public he would be stoned by the American People! We have been drawn to Iraq for the interest of things other than American National Security Interest?
This can be proven and America can and should arrest Bush and Cheney their Entire Administration, Israeli NEOCONS TOO, and put them on trial for War Crimes just like we did the Nazis after WWII.
CHECK OUT THOSE REPRESENTATIVES THAT VOTE FOR THE WAR! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC. AN ISRAELI POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP!
http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipa
cClubs.htm
REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE IS RUN BY PRO ISRAELI GROUP! THEY ARE THE ONES WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SURGE IDEA!
Bush administration is undermining the situation in Lebanon what a hypocrite!
EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq! Here is the proof Read it, IF YOU DARE!
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/
articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
50 years of American involvement in the Middle East is enough. We Should get out of the entire Middle East! They have nothing worth one more American Life anywhere in the Middle East!