Only
One Congress Member Gets It
By David Swanson
11 October, 2007
Afterdowningstreet.org
On Wednesday, I spoke with Congresswomen
Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey about getting out of Iraq. They are moving
in the right direction, but are not yet serious about ending the occupation
this year. They are resigned to putting up an effort in a misguided
approach, and then hoping to actually end it in 2009. It has not yet
penetrated anyone's understanding that the best chance we have to end
the occupation of Iraq between now and 2013 is during the next 14 months.
For almost a year Congressman
Dennis Kucinich has been saying that the Democratic leadership in Congress
should end the occupation of Iraq by not bringing up for a vote any
more bills to fund it. For all these months, he has been the only member
of Congress willing to say this.
The closest position espoused
by any of the other 534 members of the House and Senate is that Congress
should pass a bill to fund only the withdrawal of the troops and mercenaries.
Of course, they don't say mercenaries but "contractors," and
instead of withdrawal they say (and often mean) "redeployment,"
and they're willing to fund another year or more of the occupation if
the bill doing so "funds the redeployment" by January 2009.
This is the position of the 88 congress members who have signed the
Peace
Pledge Letter that is finally attracting a little attention.
Or, rather, it would be their position if you could believe them. Most
of the 88 just voted billions more for the occupation in a Continuing
Resolution.
But here's the chief problem
with the "fund a withdrawal" idea. It keeps everyone talking
in terms of passing a bill. And once that bill fails in the Senate or
is vetoed, everyone will still be talking in terms of passing a bill,
but they'll pass a bill that simply funds the occupation. The idea that
the Pentagon needs money to withdraw the troops and mercenaries is absurd.
That's pocket change for the Pentagon. Kucinich advocates requiring
Bush to use money already appropriated.
A recent
poll offered people a choice of spending another $200 billion
without conditions (13 percent of the country supported this), spending
$200 billion but requiring that all troops be home within a year (19
percent), spending $50 billion and requiring that all troops be home
in six months (14 percent), or requiring Bush to use existing funds
to bring all troops home in six months (40 percent). One congress member
represents 40 percent of Americans.
On Wednesday, Kucinich released
a statement demanding that the Democratic leadership require Bush to
use existing funds to end the occupation. "If they don't, then
they're just as responsible as the President for continuing this illegal
and immoral war," said Kucinich, "and open to accusations
of fraud upon the American people for promising during last year's elections
that Democratic control of the Congress would mean an end to the war.
Instead of ending the war, the leadership has knuckled under time and
time again and given the President every dollar he's asked for to continue
it."
By delaying a vote until
early next year on the Defense Department's $190 billion appropriation
bill, the Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate have tacitly
acknowledged that the war effort is already fully funded for the next
several months, Kucinich said. "The leadership needs to force a
showdown with the President and demand that those billions of dollars
be used to bring our troops home now." He estimated the cost to
withdraw all troops and equipment at between $5 billion and $10 billion.
"That money is there right now. There is no excuse not to use it
to bring our troops home."
Kucinich, the only Democratic
Presidential candidate who voted against the original war authorization
in 2002 and every supplemental war-funding appropriation since, said
Democratic protestations that they don't have the votes to block additional
funding "is a hoax. You don't need votes. All we need is the backbone
to exercise our Constitutional authority and the integrity to keep our
word to the voters to do what we said we would do: end this war. Now."
Kucinich has been saying
this for many months and has failed, as far as I know, to bring a single
additional congress member around to his position. Meanwhile, the Progressive
Caucus, co-chaired by Woolsey and Lee, has organized 88 congress members
to sign their letter, which begins
"Seventy House Members
wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating
additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal
Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our
troops out of Iraq before you leave office."
Kucinich is one of the 88
who have signed. If enough congress members back this letter and stand
behind it, it will become very difficult for Pelosi to pass any Iraq
funding bill other than the worst sort of unconditional funding that
will win considerable backing from Republicans. A bill to fund a withdrawal
will die in the Senate or be vetoed. At that point, Pelosi will search
around for a bill she can pass without the support of progressives.
What would make her less likely to go this route would be if the 87
other than Kucinich who have signed the letter were talking about it
in terms of the ultimate goal of not passing any bill. Instead they
are talking in terms of pressuring the Senate to pass their bill. The
words "sixty senators" are constantly on their lips, even
though everyone knows the next impossible feat after winning over 60
senators would have to be winning over 67 senators (60 to get past a
filibuster, 67 to get past a veto).
At an event I attended Wednesday
evening (see
photo album), Congressman Jim Moran gave a speech in which
he claimed that the Democrats could not end the occupation without 60
senators. This is crazy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could single-handedly
refuse to bring Iraq funding bills up for votes. Or
41 senators could block any such bill. And Nancy Pelosi
could single-handedly refuse to bring Iraq funding bills up for a vote.
It would take 218 members signing a petition to force a vote against
her will. And she has shown how effectively she can assert her will
when she wants to.
Congresswomen Woolsey and
Lee spoke after Moran. They spoke of the importance of the House acting
as it should regardless of the Senate, but then lamented the state of
the Senate and concluded that at least they'd end the occupation in
2009. I talked to Woolsey and Lee separately afterwards.
Woolsey did not at first
even understand what I was trying to tell her. She insisted that 60
senate votes are needed. I explained that only 41 or 1 (Harry Reid's)
would do it once we get to the point of blocking bills. She understood,
but clearly believed the whole discussion was outside the realm of discourse
on Capitol Hill.
Lee seemed to understand
more quickly what I was saying, but also to lack any confidence that
a real attempt to end the occupation this year could get off the ground.
I asked her what would happen if her proposal for funding "redeployment"
died in the Senate or on the president's desk. Would people understand
that it was time to pass no legislation, or would they insist on passing
some bill, any bill? The latter, she said. But she expressed a willingness
to start trying to talk in terms of blocking any bills to fund the occupation.
Sadly, the list we need to
be watching even more than the list of signers of the Peace Pledge letter,
is the list of congress members who want to end the occupation, not
by passing a bill, but by blocking one. This list currently has only
one person's name on it. If it doesn't grow quickly, and if the presidential
election doesn't change drastically, we will be facing at least five
more years of occupying Iraq.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.