Don't be Distracted. Mcgovern's bill is the mission

[Ian David]

From: "Phil Dunkelbarger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Don't be Distracted Mcgovern's bill is the mission
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007

I am writing this letter to all my friends in the MA 9th and proximity, because of my grave concern at the course of recent Iraq War events, and, in particular, the emerging position of the Democratic Party. In brief, here is my view of what’s happening.



The Democratic Party has decided to focus its “opposition” to Administration policy on the “surge” proposal, about which the President is supposed to inform us all tonight. This proposal is a political gift to the majority of Democratic politicians who have been acquiescent, if not complicit, in the creation of the mess we’re in, because it affords them the cover they have been looking for to oppose the Administration, without addressing the real issue, which is the continuation of the War/Occupation in its present form. It permits them to continue to claim that the election expressed the disenchantment of the public with the Administration/Republican handling of this “fiasco,” while continuing to offer no solution.



An article in today’s Globe states:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has suggested that in the coming months Congress may use its control of federal spending to prevent any troop increase. But she and Reid have said they won't stop funding the war, a move that would affect troops already deployed in Iraq.

The new Democratic majority is confronting the reality that, when it comes to war, the executive branch holds most of the power. Several prominent Democrats -- including Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Senate Foreign Relations chairman, and House majority leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland -- believe congressional attempts to dictate war policy may be unconstitutional.”


Nonsense! The Constitution is very clear about the fact that the Congress has both the power and the responsibility to both declare war and spend the people’s money. It is only these spineless legislators who have abdicated their authority and ducked their responsibility in these matters. It is a dereliction of duty the people should no longer tolerate.

Another article in today’s NY Times states:

“Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.

Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq.”


“Symbolic” votes and political posturing are distractions from the only important issue; whether or not to continue funding the war and occupation. A ready vehicle for deciding that question is Rep. Jim McGovern’s bill, HR 4232, which has been languishing in a Committee of the U.S. House of Reps since November 2005. Here is the Act in its entirety:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `End the War in Iraq Act of 2005.’
SECTION 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DEPLOY ARMED FORCES TO IRAQ

(a) Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq.

(b) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the use of funds to--

(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Iraq; or

(2) ensure the security of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by--

(A) carrying out consultations with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and other international organizations; or

(B) providing financial assistance or equipment to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq.


A dear friend and ardent admirer of Senator Kennedy sent me an email yesterday extolling his initiative to require Congressional approval for the “surge.” Here was my reply:

“In fact, what the Congress should be forced to vote on is McGovern's bill HR4232. They should not just be asked to vote on escalation, but on continuation. If Kennedy really wanted to do something, he should be introducing McGovern's bill on the Senate side. I'm afraid the Dems are still ducking. They want "oversight" and a debate on escalation. They feel very comfortable bashing the Administration, but Pelosi is very quick to assure everyone that the Democrats will always "support the troops," which is always code for continued funding. So, if this is all about opposing escalation, it's not good enough for me. Just watch the "honor roll" on This Week or the Jim Lehrer Report, the silent flashing of young lives snuffed out, and ask yourself, how many more will have to die, or be maimed physically and mentally for the rest of their lives, while the Democrats engage in "oversight." I'm afraid most of the Dems just want to keep it alive, to use it for political advantage in 2008. If that were not the case, then they'd stop calling for a "plan" (what's their plan?), stop beating their chests about not giving the President a "blank check," stop the rhetoric about "oversight," stop threatening investigations into the corruption, war-profiteering, manipulation of "intelligence," and incompetence (all of which should come later, to be sure, with an eye toward criminal prosecution), and instead take one simple vote in favor of HR4232. As far as I'm concerned, the river of blood (of "coalition" forces, contractors, newspersons, Iraqi men, women, and children, etc.) just drips from the hands of those that voted to start this conflict. But it will also be on the hands of those who, while voting against the original resolution, don't have the courage to vote for HR4232 now. Everyone who can't stand for an end to this occupation, knowing it was wrong to begin with and is wrong everyday it continues, must be held accountable.”

It seems to me that we are being taken for fools; to think we could be bought off by opposition to a “surge” (another clever Rovism for “escalation”). I urge you all to help keep our collective eye on the ball – passage of HR4232. Nothing less should be acceptable.

Phil Dunkelbarger January 10, 2007

[rosesaylavee]

1. Thanks for this info.

I hadn't yet heard about McGovern's bill.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

2. YES! Keep pushing it!

I was arrested in Delahunts office last April
because he would not step near HR4232. He's
been warned by me about his 97Billion supplemental
vote Feb.7th.

[PATRICK]

3. The surge as the central issue

also reduces two more critical issues, the occupation of Iraq AND the go ahead policy on Iran. Dems are present all across the spectrum but the national mainstream is being occupied with an add-on quagmire over 21,500 troops being moved because Bush can.

Fundamentally reversing US policy in Iraq and prohibiting Iran are NOT as hard as impeachment and tragically both have broad support would the straight man center of slow party leadership not be more attuned to the false MSM and WH script. Since this rushed ludicrous rehash strategy of a surge seems to stand alone it might be wise to look to other motives.

It actually might be only a reinforcement of the continuance of the US mission. This house to house business and suicidal stationing of new troops in police stations is not even worked out with our puppets. It may be a simple sham just to get reinforcements in place defensively to keep us alive in Baghdad, especially in the aftermath of an attack against Iran. Doubly it's function has nothing to do with "winning" in Iraq. It helps preserve the oil takeover midst chaos and bolsters defense in the wake of destroying Iran. The worldwide disruption of Iranian oil flow(but thank God Pres. Bush has the Iraqi fields!) and the new mantra of "Save our troops in Iraq!" are all protected by the surge which has absolutely no military purpose offensively.

Our national myopia is still blurred and badly focused thanks to most leadership on high in government or communications. The unreality of the surge fascinates while the bloody bookends of Iraq and Iran press in.

[welshTerrier2]

4. "we will never defund the troops"

i keep hearing Dems, i.e. Dems who refuse to even acknowledge McGovern's bill, suggest that a cut-off of funds is the equivalent of leaving troops in harms way without adequate funding ... they suggest that it would be irresponsible (and anti-military and political suicide) to use the power of the purse to shut-off funds for the war and occupation ...

it is utter nonsense ...

and then some, even here on DU, argue that bush would continue the war and occupation even if Congress did cut-off funds and that the troops would then be deprived of necessary funding support ... again, it's utter nonsense ...

if Congress puts its foot down, the war is over ... period ... if funds are cut-off, bush will continue nothing ...

all this discussion that the surge is wrong begs the real question ... if 20 thousand more troops is wrong, what is the "right" number ... wasn't it also wrong to send in the last 20 thousand before the surge was even announced? how about the 20 thousand before that or before that? instead of letting bush "play with house money" and instead of arguing about MORE troops, let's return to planet earth, shall we?

stop the damned war ... stop pretending that "we need a political solution" is "ending the war" ... what the hell kind of political solution do you really believe can be achieved? and even if one could be achieved, are you willing to invest more blood and treasure in something so incredibly unlikely? i'm sure not!!!

i support the McGovern; i am in full agreement with the OP; the Dems need to stop "pretending"; even many republicans have had it with the war ...

the message is simple: don't let bush continue this madness ... it's not about escalation; it's about STOPPING THE DAMNED WAR NOW!!!!!

k&r ...

[Ian David]

5. Can we cut off funding to The White House budget? n/t