Democrats Break Promise to End War
Final Call, News Analysis, Askia Muhammed, Posted: Apr 20, 2007
WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) - In Washington politics, things are not always what they appear to be. The current debate over continued funding of the war in Iraq is an example.
The conventional wisdom insists that the debate over ending the war is all about the looming veto showdown between President George W. Bush and Congress over continued funding for the $2 billion-per-week Iraq war and whether or not funds, which must be approved by Congress, should include mandates for any withdrawal of U.S. forces.
On the one hand, the Bush administration wants no conditions on the massive amounts of money it says it needs as it escalates the bloody war now in its fifth year, and that strings attached by the Democratic-led legislature are reckless, dangerous, and undermine his commanders and their troops who are “in harm’s way.”
Democrats, on the other hand, argue that their tactic of providing full funding for “Bush’s war,” while setting non-binding timetables for troop withdrawals is the best way to force a change in the war policy.
But that’s just part of the story.
A growing number of war opponents complain that Democrats, who now control both the House of Representatives and the Senate, have gone back on their promise to voters last year to end the war outright.
The comments of a member of Code Pink, who identified herself only as “Liz from Arizona,” are typical. “I want to say that I’m very disappointed. We voted for a mandate of peace, and peace platform candidates on Nov. 7, which changed Congress. And we are expecting Congress to do their jobs, and support our troops. Bring them home out of this illegal, failed, endless occupation,” she told The Final Call after a protest at a banquet for Congressional radio and television correspondents held Mar. 28.
“We’re tired of it. Our families are tired. We want our families united. We want to move on. We want our moral standing in the world back,” she continued.
“Liz” is not alone.
“In the labor movement, we love what they’re [Code Pink] doing, and when they come to Ohio, we’re going to turn that state ‘blue,’” a sheet-metal worker who identified himself only as “Ted” told The Final Call.
The next day, the Senate voted its version of a $122 billion off-budget, emergency supplemental appropriation, which included a troop pullout timetable. But that was not before dozens of protestors set up a mock grave site in the Hart Senate Office Building, with pictures of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians “killed in this illegal and immoral war,” organizer Kevin Zeese, a member of Peace Action from Montgomery County, Maryland told The Final Call Mar. 29 just after the Senate vote.
“The point of the demonstration was to say to the Democratic Party that they were not elected and put into majority power status to extend the war, they were put in there to end the war,” said Mr. Zeese. “This current bill they’re so proud of passing today, and claim is a change in course with its deadlines or goals, extends the war for another year, and even after their deadline, there are such gigantic loopholes that any commander-in-chief could keep as many troops as he or she wanted to, after that goal or deadline is passed.
“I really think that what we’re seeing in Washington, D.C. around this war, is political game-playing. The Democrats, I think, are trying to position themselves for 2008. They don’t want to have the responsibility for this war, so they’re trying to put something in this bill that sounds a little different, unless you look at the details.”
The “details” of the Democratic position, mean more of the same, critics insist. For example: The Senate bill sets non-binding target dates for the withdrawal of “combat troops.” They make up about half of the 150,000 troops now in Iraq, and those numbers will “surge” to 170,000 by summer. Half of that number will still keep more than 80,000 U.S. military personnel there, “that’s a gigantic force,” said Mr. Zeese.
“But even beyond that, combat troops are allowed to stay, to: Fight terrorists; to secure the borders; to train Iraqis. Those are such gigantic loopholes,” he said. “We’re right now doing all those things with 150,000 troops, and we’re not doing it very effectively.
“We’re in fact losing this war with 150,000 troops. So, I could see a commander-in-chief saying, ‘I need more troops,’ and under the language of the Senate bill, and the language of the House bill, that would be permitted because they would be fighting terrorists, fighting al Qaeda.”
“Our Congress people are just out of touch,” said “Liz.” “I can’t even meet with them and talk to them, reasonably. I have to come to D.C. and find them in the street and walk with them, and try to converse, and try to touch some humanity in their spirit.”
But Democrats–even the Congressional Black Caucus–defend a number of initiatives that were tacked on to the war supplemental appropriation.
Some of those add-ons which were added to attract the votes of liberal Democrats, especially CBC members, include: $4.3 billion for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster recovery grants; $1.3 billion for levee protection in New Orleans; $30 million for K-12 education recruitment assistance; $30 million for higher education assistance; community disaster loan forgiveness; $25 million for Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loans; $80 million for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) tenant-based rental assistance; $400 million for low income home energy assistance; $3.7 billion in agricultural assistance; and $40 million in foreign aid security assistance for Liberia.
In all, 35 of the CBC’s 40 eligible House members endorsed the add-ons, despite the fact that almost all of those who endorsed the appropriation had earlier signed on as members of the “Out of Iraq Caucus.”
In the end, only eight members of the 70-member Out of Iraq Caucus voted against the money, which opponents insist guarantees that the war will continue until at least 2008. Those members were: Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), chair of the Caucus; Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), John Lewis (D-Ga.), Diane Watson (D-Calif.), presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Mike Michaud (D-Minn.), Mike McNulty (D-N.Y.), and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
In addition, war opponents complain that more than 225 U.S. forces have been killed in Iraq since the Democrats have come to power on Capitol Hill. “We are here to express our outrage at a Democrat-crafted spending bill that would continue the Iraq war into August 2008, and leave thousands, potentially tens of thousands of troops on the ground in that country, even after that date,” Deborah Abramsky, a leader of Neighbors United for Justice and Peace from nearby Mt. Rainier, Md. said in a letter hand-delivered to Congressional offices.
“The majority of U.S. voters want the troops to come home now,” the letter continues. “The Democrats were given a mandate to end the war when they gained a majority in the House and Senate in the last election. None of the Democratic leadership’s plans take into account the urgency of that mandate. It is hypocrisy that in this supplemental the Democrats will be paying for the escalation that they voted against last month.”
“The peace movement that has been working so hard to end the war is sickened by this supplemental,” said Ellen Barfield, a veteran and member of the Baltimore Pledge of Resistance and Veterans for Peace, in a statement.
“The American people gave Congress a mandate to get us out of Iraq, not to give suggestions to President Bush in the hopes he may finally listen,” said Tina Richards, the mother of Marine Cpl. Cloy Richards, who faces his third deployment in the war zone.
There are other loopholes in both the House and Senate versions of the funding bill. Critics complain that more than 100,000 Pentagon and State Department-paid “mercenaries,” or contract personnel, who are now in Iraq, will not be affected by the emergency legislation.
“It’s certainly not an end to the war when you allow to keep combat troops there to fight terrorists, train Iraqis and secure the borders, and then also keep tens of thousands of non-combat troops there to support those troops. It’s certainly not going to be an end to the war,” said Mr. Zeese. “And further, the failure to deal with the use of military force against Iran, makes it more likely that this bill will expand the war, rather than bring the troops home.”
Related Articles
Anniversary of a Debacle
Latinos Soldiers Lead in Iraq Deaths Among Soldiers of Color
U.S. Support for Terrorism in Iran
First South Korean Soldier Killed in Afghanistan
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
Stuart Slater on May 02, 2007 at 10:00:57 said:
republicans in congress need to wake up and support an override of the Bush veto. It makes no sense to say the dems are moving too slow when they don't have the votes to override a veto.
alan on Apr 21, 2007 at 14:13:02 said:
As a veteran of Vietnam I have seen this scenerio played out again and again. There is absolutely not one iota of difference between the democratrepublican parties. Both are exactly the same, they want to hold onto power, they put their pocketbooks ahead of what's good for the US. Me, I've been living in Amsterdam and moved there a few days after the war started. I don't believe I'll be coming back to the US to live anytime soon.
Mark Caldera on Apr 21, 2007 at 13:30:19 said:
"Why would insurgents stop fighting? Would you? If Iraq invaded America, would you give up? I didn't think so."
They would stop fighting so that they can earn an honest living and raise their families. They would also make it easier for everyone else to do that. It's the right thing to do, and I would do the right thing or die trying.
The insurgency is not a good example of patriotic citizens defending their country, it is the opposite. Disrupting civil services and destroying your own infrastruture is cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
The real patriots of Iraq have been risking their lives trying to put the country back together. The ones trying to tear it apart should not have even the most implicit support.
I am certain that the Democrats in Congress are patriotic towards the United States and will keep that in mind regardless of the politics involved.
Jim menges on Apr 21, 2007 at 12:54:53 said:
The solution to our involvement on Iraq is simple. Congress should pass the "troop funding bill" that includes the requirement that the Iraqi government initiate a special national election within 90 days to answer the question "Do you want the foreign troops to leave our country in 30 days? YES or NO". If the Iraqi population vote "YES", we leave. If they vote "NO", we stay. Either way we will have given them Democracy and cannot be blamed for the outcome.
The Sunnis and Shi'ites have been murdering each other on religious grounds for 1400 years. It would take 30 million troops for two generations to stop this carnage. Only a person with an IQ below 80 can be excused for believing otherwise.
If the Congress and the Administration cannot agree to this, they will be responsible for destroying our military, bankrupting our finances, strengthening terrorism, and causing the rest of the world to detest us.
Jim Menges
1908 Deauville Dr.
Lexington KY 40504
859 396 9687 cell phone
Brian on Apr 21, 2007 at 12:17:57 said:
You liberals and pacifists just really don't get it do you. Have you completely forgotten 9-11? Have you forgotten about the USS Cole bombing, and the first attempt on the World Trade Center? These fanatics will not stop trying to destroy us if we leave Iraq! It will be truly a sad point in history if you people get the "peace" that you so ingnorantly ask for, and we leave Iraq to the terrorists, opening it up for a slaughtering bloodbath. Once that takes place, it is only a matter of time until Al-Qaeda attacks us again, only this time it will be much worse than 9-11. The blood of the thousands if not millions of people that will die due to your ingnorant and selfish actions will be on your hands and yours alone. Rest easy with that thought, you stupid fools. When it all does hit the fan, myself and my guns that you so hate will not be there to help you when the time comes for you to die by the hands of these Islamo-Nazis. Good day.
John V on Apr 21, 2007 at 11:23:06 said:
we r on a free country...this is not irresponsible journalism. news on the major channels are filtered anyway...did u know that? censorship is allover the place.
I say pull out from iraq and let them figure it out...babaloo bush is not capable of squat...he is a pupet...
If somebody would come to us and invade us I will be after them until no one was left. btw, I am not from us but live here.
Bob Elliott on Apr 21, 2007 at 10:45:45 said:
Withdraw Democrats from Congress dot Com
We must stay the course and finish the job. We have been fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq since Saddam fell and we will continue fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq rather than in the streets of San Francisco.
Keep up the good work Mr. President!
Cyrus on Apr 21, 2007 at 09:39:31 said:
There is no difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. However, there is a slight difference between the people with democratic tendencies and those with the republican ones.
So, one should not expect any major changes especially in foreign policy agenda from the Democrats. The Dems just wanted your vote and a little feel-good nationally and internationally which would help the Republicans as well. We are truly living in a one party society.
A T on Apr 21, 2007 at 09:04:49 said:
Don't you guys think that your wishes and those of the american government are hypocritical? They occupy a country where a dictator keeps everyone scared and keeps the shiis and sunnis separated, the reason the american army is there is clear to everyone and noone gave a s**t abut saddam hussein in reality.
Now that the country is in a state of civil war, 200 body bags are examined A DAY not to mention the countless disappearances all a DIRECT result of the american invasion. And now that the toll has climed to a few thousand american soldiers who are fighting a pointless war, the troops need to be called back?
And what's going to happen to the 26 million people that live there when there will be no government, horrible ration supplies, the #'s of casualties estimate between 65000 and 650 000 people going from teh ultra conservative to the exaggeration. So I'll put myself in the middle. 325 000 civilians are dead and no one will be there to assure the security of their families for years of horrible political instability.
The American government has a responsibility to the people of Irak because they are the ones that put them into this mess under the pretext of "democracy"
Andy Frederickson on Apr 21, 2007 at 08:30:29 said:
I have received replies from my Oregon congressional representatives to letters I have sent to them encouraging them to get us out of this war now and completely. The most "blue" of them spent 3 pages explaining why he cannot in good conscience vote against funding this escalation of Bush's war policy by arguing that "supporting the troops" is the "national will" and the anti-war proponents don't have the votes to override a veto.
After much reflection on his thoughtful and persuasive reply, I am now convinced that if our "antiwar" representatives don't have the gonads to do what is required to stop funding this illegal and immoral war and exercise their power to withhold funding by refusing to allow the President to dictate congressional action, we have gained nothing from the last election.
Put bluntly, if my representatives refuse to defund this war, I'll be looking to a 3rd party candidate for 2008.
EMB on Apr 21, 2007 at 08:02:53 said:
Dems could not promise to be able to override a presidential veto unless the American people had turned Republicans out of office to give Dems more than 2/3 majority in House and Senate. There's something called the constitution that prevents the war from ending without enough Dems yet in Congress to do the override. The result is the present muddle in Washington. I agree with previous comment: this kind of journalism is a classic case of promoting ignorance with a half-truth story. The war can't be stopped if lefty journalists keep indulging in this kind of online self righteousness.
Franklin on Apr 21, 2007 at 07:58:51 said:
$2 billion per week??? 2,000,000,000 is a LOT of money!
And we wonder why our children are so stupid, why our health care is so bad, and we are the richest nation. Good grief!
Jason on Apr 21, 2007 at 07:55:32 said:
Why would insurgents stop fighting? Would you? If Iraq invaded America, would you give up? I didn't think so.
Sure it will be bloody when we leave, but it is bloody now. There is no good outcome. Bring them home now and let the Iraqi's handle it with the help of other Muslim neighbors.
L. James on Apr 21, 2007 at 07:40:33 said:
Americans fail to understand is that our democracy has been dead for quite some time now -- due in part to quisling, neoliberal Democrats in Congress who we persist in electing -- but mostly due to our own failures as citizens. Washington D.C. is a reflection of America's deep paralysis, disengaged and detached cynicism, consumerism, and pure laziness. We would rather sit at home and diddle our iPods then rescue our democracy. Most American adults have never once in their lives even bothered to pick up the phone to dial Congress toll free 800-828-0498, and tell their Senator or Representative what they expect from them. Most don't vote either. We don't see ourselves as citizens anymore. We see ourselves as exactly what the public relations, advertising and media industries have trained us to be: passive, mindless, violence-loving Consumers. We are quickly learning to love the taste of this dictatorship's bootleather too. It's 1930s Germany all over again. Disgusting.
Kelly Burch on Apr 21, 2007 at 06:45:38 said:
Gerald's concern of criticizing the wrong people may seem valid when considering the Democratic Party needs continued support to achieve the domestic agenda it was elected to achieve. But when looking at the bigger picture, the party also requires, and unlike the Republicans, responds to their voters who write, call and critique.
My own experience is to have gotten personalized replies to every email and observed shifts in the position of both Senators Boxer and Feinstein. Even 'if' those respondents were aides, it indicates to us the message is getting through. The opposite is true of my unresponsive Republican rep who still backs the stem cell ban, even after the finding that current lines of stem cell are "useless." His office will not respond to letters.
No, the war in Iraq will be stopped by our Congress but it needs to do so with the slim majorities it holds and the unfortunate fact that the procedural rules in the Senate allow the minority party, which began the war, to block discussion or debate on fundamental facts. As time goes on and the surge proves itself fundamentally unsound andanother incorrect choice by Bush, Republicans will change back into political animals and drop the tactic or face losing their jobs. They will then claim, Democrats sabotaged the opportunity to achieve 'lasting victory' after our goals were met. (The overthrow of Saddam and the establishment of a Democracy in Iraq)
We should continue to push our leaders to end this war. We should push them to end it now. We are also obligated to watch young men and women die because this nation lacked the mature vision to see who George W. Bush and his party are. But the responsibility for that war and its results remain fully on the Republican party which provided rubber stamp oversight of a proven incompetent leader. No small wonder, they cling to the glimmering that Iraq might somehow turn out well. Like the power addicts they are, they gamble their political survival of lives of American children in uniform while clamoring 'support' for them. That's something worth foaming at the mouth about.
Jim Moly on Apr 21, 2007 at 06:27:02 said:
Politics as usual.
Mark B on Apr 21, 2007 at 01:45:13 said:
Yes the Democrats we voted to take over Congress are doing NOTHING to stop Bush. They are powerless wimps. We need Bush GONE, KAPUT, HISTORY. Change was voted for, but NOTHING is happening. Get a backbone Democrats!!!!!!
Phil D. on Apr 20, 2007 at 23:57:08 said:
Severe balderdash from both sides is written above. The Code-Pinkos comment is obviously written by someone from the Archie Bunker show. Who uses that terminology anymore? Code Pink are brave women trying to save America\'s children from being cruelly perverted and physically destroyed by war. Not to mention those children of non-American mothers dying in vastly greater numbers everyday. If America has an \"empire\" it should be destroyed! Come home and restore our country, protect our borders and stop traveling around the world to fight others fights. On the other hand, the new Democratic leadership, voted in on a vast antiwar sentiment, have completely caved to the status quo because they are still afraid of appearing weak on defense. Over 60% of the country is opposed to this war but they are still listening to the DNC and the moneymen scaring up threats to Isreal. I am a registered Democrat and I will not be voting for any of the big 3 candidates. I will be voting for Kucinich if I can in the primaries and if he is not around come election day I will gladly cross the aisle and vote for Republican Ron Paul. No war in Iraq. No war in Iran. Bring them home now!
Jerry on Apr 20, 2007 at 22:35:53 said:
OK, so if that's the case and the Dems have "let you down" as the article states, then simply teach those Dems a lesson and vote Republican! That'll make it work. So much whinning and belly aching, no positive solutions. What a world of spoiled brats we live in. The "I voted for them to do it for me" just doesn't cut it. Go to iraq with all your protesting and end this war yourselves! Be proactive people!
h keller on Apr 20, 2007 at 21:55:29 said:
Let the President veto the Bill and don't bring up a vote on another war funding Bill for a year. What so hard about that.
Most of our soldiers want to come home. The ones that don't and want to continue the Bush's war are probably like the President. I think for a fair number of Democrats and Independents not keeping the time table in the bill will be a bad thing.
Jabra'il Sancho on Apr 20, 2007 at 17:22:17 said:
CODE PINKOS HAVE MISLED AMERICA LONG ENOUGH!
There activism is far from anti-war, when their real objective is to destroy the American Empire, or in other words the United States of America. What the Pinkos should be calling their lie is what it really is; the anti-American empire movemment wrapped in pacifist wool.
Mark Caldera on Apr 20, 2007 at 17:17:40 said:
The war would end a lot sooner if the Iraqi insurgency and their enablers along with Al Qaeda in Iraq simply stopped fighting. Has anyone thought of that?
K D on Apr 20, 2007 at 17:11:15 said:
The staff at Final call and New America Media must be trying to get attention with misleading headlines like this. There are too many Republicans that are still standing behind Bush for the Democrats to get us out of Iraq yet. Impeach Bush and Cheney now!
George A. on Apr 20, 2007 at 16:30:23 said:
There is tremendous termoil in Iraq but there are more than 150,000 there now. There are 125,000 privatized troops doing the exact same job as the 150,000, and it costs the Pentagon much more to fund them then it does the military.
So let's start talking about the real numbers, not regurgitate what we are told on television.
LKoube on Apr 20, 2007 at 16:28:51 said:
END THE WAR! We can not affort it - Health care, education are priorities!
Gerald Martinez on Apr 20, 2007 at 16:26:48 said:
The Dems are doing everything they can with the power they have to bring the war to an end. They have passed all the 2 week legislation they promised the voters and passed the closest thing to ending the war than ever before. The republicans and the president are trying to roadblock the closing of this war. If the dems don't end it by 2008 then they will after getting the presidence. But making an article with this title is just irresponsible journalism if journalism is what you intended it to look like, right now it seems like just another foaming at the mouth blog criticizing the wrong people.
-->