[Peace-discuss] Johnson & Gill on AfPak war

[C. G. Estabrook]

Tim Johnson, our incumbent Congressman, was an original co-sponsor of Rep.
Kucinich's resolution on withdrawal from Afghanistan:

"Rep. Johnson Statement on Afghanistan Withdrawal Resolution 03/10/10
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Timothy V. Johnson today issued the following
statement as he joined with Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Walter
Jones, and others in forcing a House of Representatives vote to remove U.S.
troops from Afghanistan.  House Congressional Resolution 248 calls for the
removal of Armed Forces from Afghanistan by the end of this year...

http://timjohnson.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=29&parentid=7&sectiontree=7,29&itemid=315

But candidate David Gill does not support the terms of the Kucinich resolution:

"...Our military efforts have rid Afghanistan of most Al-Qaida operatives, but
civilian casualties and our presence as a foreign occupying force have fueled
the nativist Taliban insurgency. Pakistan’s new government has made some sincere
efforts to resist growing Taliban influence, but now faces over-extension of its
limited military resources and hostility from its populace toward increased
military activity.

"The escalation of our military involvement in Afghanistan over the past year
has been troubling to me and to a large segment of American society. I
definitely do not support funding of any additional combat troop build-ups in
that part of the world, and I believe that we should begin to withdraw
substantial numbers of our troops as soon as possible and as the situation on
the ground allows. However, we cannot simply withdraw troops in a precipitous
manner without risking further destabilization of this already fragile and
war-torn region..."

http://www.gill2010.com/issues/foreign-policy/afghanistan/


> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:03:51PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> But our Congressman now says he was wrong to vote for war war in 
>> Afghanistan and Iraq.  More importantly, he's voting against any more money
>>  for those wars.
>> 
>> That's what our demonstrations and importuning of representatives was 
>> supposed to produce, right?
>> 
>> It would be a further mockery of democracy to vote for a candidate who 
>> lends "critical support" to the war. --CGE
> 
> If you are talking about Gill -- he does not.  He has said that he would vote
> against continued funding for the wars, even if it were to cost him his seat
> in the following election.  This has been noted here before.
> 
>> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>> Well, of course, Johnson's against the war now that there's a Dem in the
>>> White House, like Gill opposed it when the POP held the Presidential 
>>> stool.  I wouldn't make TOO much of the distinction. Pulling out troops
>>> is also not the only way to save lives (although we should support it,
>>> too). Ricky


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.