Want to stop the escalation of another pointless, bad war? Tell the Congress to VOTE NO on this war. They still have the power to fund it or not fund it.
SIGN THIS PETITION TO CONGRESS
President Obama has decided to send more than 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, at a cost of more than $100 billion/year. But America cannot afford a war that is pointless, and Congress has the power to stop the escalation. (Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution) Vote NO on any spending bill that would send more troops to Afghanistan.
December 01, 2009 – Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the President’s Decision to Increase Our Troop Presence in Afghanistan
“I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world.”
Earlier on December 1st, Senator Feingold was joined by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA), Walter Jones (R-NC) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) in voicing opposition to a troop increase for Afghanistan.
LETS VOTE ON IT!
WAR: It’s Not the President’s Decision
The U.S. Constitution leaves the decision to wage war to Congress, and Congress can enforce its decision not to wage war by refusing to fund it. Blocking a funding bill for wars requires the House of Representatives alone, and both Democrats and Republicans in the House are rapidly joining us in saying No to war funding.
The “No You Can’t Rally”
“No You Can’t!” Rally at White House – December 12
Unity Among Peace Movement Groups against Obama War Escalation – Warning of Reprisals to Troop Surge
Over 100 leading peace activists have announced an ‘Emergency Anti-Escalation Rally’ at the White House on December 12, from 11a.m. to 4 p.m., to reject President Obama’s planned military escalation in Afghanistan. The rally is organized by End US Wars, a newly formed coalition of national and grass-roots antiwar organizations, with endorsements from leading peace leaders. Speakers include: Cynthia McKinney, Sen. Mike Gravel, Kathy Kelly, Chris Hedges, David Swanson, Phyllis Bennis, Rev. Graylan Hagler, Coy McKinney, Debra Sweet, Brian Becker, Mathis Chiroux, Lynne Williams, Hon. Betty Hall, Elaine Brower, Marian Douglas, Michael Knox, Ralph Lopez, Ron Fisher, and statements from Col. Ann Wright, Stephen Zunes and Granny D (turning 100).
Source: ENDUSWARS
Anti-war lawmakers want a vote
[some] lawmakers in Congress are pressing for an early vote on funding for new troops in Afghanistan so that President Barack Obama’s policy can be tested before thousands of additional Marines and soldiers are sent into combat.
Obama outlined his new strategy in a nationally televised speech from West Point on Tuesday night, and the administration expects to add 30,000 troops by the end of next summer, bringing the total U.S. force to more than 100,000.
“Let us have this debate before he moves forward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said in an interview Tuesday. “I remember the debates on Iraq. Bush already had the troops there, and then we were debating. … I’d like it to be before we escalate one single American troop over there.”
That’s a tall order, since the first Marine units are expected to be deployed later this month, but a January or February war funding debate can’t be ruled out and would come before most of the new troops have been sent to Afghanistan.
The Pentagon is well on its way toward finalizing an Afghanistan supplemental request that could top $35 billion, including funds for more heavily armored vehicles and intelligence and surveillance equipment. The State Department is likely to have an added piece, but the White House expects to keep the total at less than $40 billion.
In the run-up to the president’s address, some in the administration lobbied for a quick strike themselves by adding the money to year-end spending bills now being negotiated in Congress.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committee leadership has nixed this idea, demanding a fuller debate. But there is a bloc of Democrats who argue that acting sooner rather than later next year would be helpful on several levels.
For most of the Iraq war, Congress has typically waited until late May or June to approve emergency war funding. The last supplemental, a $105.9 billion war funding bill that included money for the first tranche of Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan, only won approval in mid-June after a protracted fight.
Looking forward to the 2010 elections, many Democrats would like to have more distance between this debate and when they must go before voters. Acting early could be risky for anti-war forces but would also change the dynamics of the debate.
In the case of the Iraq war, the fight in Congress was never really over cutting the level of funding so much as it was about imposing conditions on the president’s policy. And this required a two-thirds majority to overcome a White House veto.
If Congress were to act before all the troops are deployed, there would be more options. Lawmakers could cut the request — by a simple majority vote — to deny Obama the full funding for the new troop levels envisioned in the president’s strategy.
“I see the different dynamics,” an administration official told POLITICO. He said there will be further consultations with Congress before making any decision on when to seek the money, and he was encouraged by the support shown at a meeting between Obama and top lawmakers at the White House on Tuesday.
“I’m confident we have sufficient support to press ahead,” he said.
Republican support will be pivotal. “You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). Obama is “pulled from the left, but I think it would be totally irresponsible to not support his generals and not support the recommendation to try to stabilize that country.”
“It is going to be very complex and a heck of a challenge, but we’ve got to try.”
Going forward, one question mark will be conservative reaction to the timelines set by Obama for beginning to pull troops out — possibly as early as 18 months from now. That’s designed, in part, as a leverage point on the Karzai government but could raise concerns with those such as Obama’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who supports the added troops but typically distrusts such preconditions on a military operation.
Recent Comments