[Peace-discuss] Re: [sf-core] Re: ... Cost of Iraq War

[C G ESTABROOK]

	Fighting the Democrats’ Complicity with Bush
	By Francis A. Boyle
	08/10/07

Despite the massive, overwhelming repudiation of the Iraq war and the
Bush Jr. administration by the American people in the November 2006
national elections conjoined with their consequent installation of a
Congress controlled by the Democratic Party with a mandate to terminate
the Iraq war, since its ascent to power in January 2007 the Democrats in
Congress have taken no effective steps to stop, impede, or thwart the
Bush Jr. administration’s wars of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan,
Somalia, or anywhere else, including their long-standing threatened war
against Iran. To the contrary, the new Democrat-controlled Congress
decisively facilitated these serial Nuremberg crimes against peace on
May 24, 2007 by enacting a $95 billion supplemental appropriation to
fund war operations through September 30, 2007.

In the spring of 2007 all the Congressional Democrats had to do was
nothing. They could have sat upon the supplemental appropriation request
for war operations by the Bush Jr. administration and thus failed to
enact it into law. At that point, the money for war operations would
have gradually run out, and the Bush Jr. administration would have been
forced to have gradually withdrawn U.S. armed forces from Iraq and
Afghanistan. Instead of so doing, the Congressional Democrats knowingly
prolonged these wars of aggression and thus in the process became aiders
and abettors to these Nuremberg crimes against peace.

Under the terms of the United States Constitution, the President cannot
spend a dime unless the money has somehow been appropriated by the
United States Congress. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United
States Constitution expressly provides: “No money shall be drawn from
the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law...”
Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution also
provides that “Congress shall have power ...To raise and support armies,
but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term
than two years....”

America’s Founders and Framers deliberately strove to keep America’s
prospective military establishment on a financial short-leash tightly
held by the hands of Congress precisely because of their well-founded
fear that a standing army would constitute a dire threat to the
continued existence of the Republic based upon their recent experience
confronting and defeating King George III’s standing army. As the
American July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence stated their
objections in part: “[H]e has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing
Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. He has affected to
render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power ...
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us....”

Congress must use its constitutional power of the purse to terminate the
Bush Jr. administration’s wars of aggression immediately. Those
Congressional incumbents of either political party who refuse to do so
must be replaced by men and women of good faith and good will of any or
no political party who will do their constitutional duty to terminate
ongoing Nuremberg crimes against peace. To the contrary, the current
leadership of the Democratic Party (though, to be sure, not all
Democrats), let alone most of the Republicans, have been complicit with
all the atrocities that the Bush Jr. administration has inflicted upon
international law, international organizations, human rights, the United
States Constitution, civil rights, civil liberties, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Somalia, and elsewhere since September 11, 2001.

Further confirmation of this proposition can be found in the fact that
when the self-described Peace Mom Cindy
  went on July 23, 2007 with 200 protesters to speak with Democratic
Congressman John Conyers — Chair of the House Judiciary Committee that
has supervisory jurisdiction over bills of impeachment — about starting
impeachment proceedings against President Bush Jr., at the end of an
hour Congressman Conyers ordered her and 45 others arrested for
disorderly conduct when they refused to leave his office. In other
words, one of the leaders of the Democratic Party arrested one of the
leaders of the American Peace Movement for insisting that he and his
congressional colleagues perform their constitutionally-mandated duties.
Nothing could be more symptomatic of the constitutional, moral, and
political bankruptcy of the so-called two-party system of politics in
the United States of America: Republicans versus Democrats, Tweedle Dum
versus Tweedle Dee.

Since the Democrats’ Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy
Pelosi had already ruled arbitrarily that President Bush’s impeachment
was “off the table,” Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan announced her intention to
run against Pelosi in the 2008 national elections. Once again Mrs.
Sheehan’s instincts, principles, judgment, and strategy are directly on
target. The American people must oppose, defeat, and replace all members
of the United States Congress of any political party who will not
impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney in order to terminate
their needlessly — inflicted death and destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Somalia as soon as possible. The so-called leaderships of both
political parties have left the American people with no alternative.
Even more urgently, the Neo-Conservative cabal known as the Bush Jr.
administration are still threatening, planning, preparing, and
conspiring to attack Iran, which could very well set-off World War III.
Just recently they added nuclear-armed Pakistan to their publicly
proclaimed list of targets.

Meanwhile, the Bush Jr. administration’s “surge” of 30,000 troops into
Iraq announced in January of 2007 has marched on to its inexorable
bloodbath for the Iraqi people and U.S. armed forces. There is more than
enough circumstantial evidence to conclude that the underlying strategy
of the Bush Jr. administration is nothing more than to postpone their
inevitable defeat in Iraq until after their departure from office in
January 2009 no matter what the cost in lives to Iraqis and Americans.
But the world cannot wait until January of 2009 for America to start to
end these wars and their related war crimes, as well as to prevent more
threatened wars, especially against Iran or Pakistan, which could prove
catastrophic for humankind.

The United States Congress must immediately and simultaneously proceed
to exercise both its constitutional power of the purse and its
constitutional power of impeachment toward that end. That is the
bilateral strategy which the U.S. Congress pursued a generation ago in
order to terminate the Nixon administration’s criminal wars of
aggression against Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. That must be the
bilateral strategy by which the U.S. Congress today terminates the Bush
Jr. administration’s criminal wars of aggression against Iraq,
Afghanistan, Somalia, and otherwise perhaps soon Iran or Pakistan.
Despite Pelosi’s disingenuous protestations to the contrary, the
Nixon/Vietnam precedent proves that Congressional impeachment and
cutting-off funds for wars are mutually reinforcing strategies. They
might even win the 2008 U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections
for those who embrace them.

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of
Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of
Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law,
by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU


C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately, the timetable was part of a bill funding the war. You
> couldn't separate them by wishing they were.
> 
> The Democrats were given control of Congress last fall to end the war.
> They could have done so by blocking funding for it, and they chose
> instead to fund it -- with gestures (like that non-binding timetable)
> that attempted to place the blame for it on the administration. their
> front groups, with demonstrations against Republican representatives
> (only), attempt to cover this murderous betrayal -- which the Democrats
> committed not because they were spineless but because they support the
> overall policy of which the war in Iraq is a part (as do Clinton and
> Obama).
> 
> The Democrats have worked strenuously in Congress to neutralize the
> dangerous fact that almost three-quarters of Americans oppose the war.
> The anti-war movement shouldn't cooperate with that. --CGE
> 
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>  >
>  > No, Carl, I did not do that. I organized a demonstration protesting
>  > Bush's veto for a timetable for withdrawal.
>  >
>  > Argue your own position. Don't construct your own version of my position
>  > as a foil for your own. It's not nice.
>  >
>  > I accept that you like this polemical style. If you have a partner who
>  > also likes it, and others enjoy it as spectators, no-one can have any
>  > grounds for objecting. But I don't like it. One ought to be able to opt
>  > out of it.
>  >
>  >
>  > On 8/15/07, *C. G. Estabrook* <galliher at uiuc.edu 
> <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu>
>  > <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu>>> wrote:
>  >
>  > Bob, didn't you organize a demonstration protesting Bush's veto of the
>  > Democrats' bill funding the war?
>  >
>  > My memory is that at that demonstration you and I discussed supporting
>  > that bill. I said that we should urge our representatives not to vote
>  > for any further funding for the war, and you said that you'd like to do
>  > that -- but couldn't for reasons of effectiveness: that it was more
>  > effective to attach timelines, etc. to funding bills.
>  >
>  > I don't think it's one argument. There are many reasons for opposing
>  > the Iraq war, some good, some bad. The latter would include the Richard
>  > Clarke/Barack Obama arguments that the troops should be used for killing
>  > different Muslims.
>  >
>  > I nevertheless agree that it can be worthwhile to work with groups and
>  > individuals whose views on the war you don't entirely agree with. But
>  > at least some of those differences should not be ignored, just for the
>  > sake of a united front. Given the vast forest of lies that is the
>  > American political landscape, we should try to tell the truth about our
>  > politics. I hope trying to do that is the source of my "inevitable
>  > attacks."
>  >
>  > The author of amleft.blog.com <http://amleft.blog.com 
> <http://amleft.blog.com>> this week
>  > discusses "Michael O'Hanlon and
>  > Kenneth Pollock, those purported Brookings Institution critics of the
>  > war who discovered that, gosh golly, the surge is really working, and
>  > the war is turning in our favor." He notes that, "contrary to the
>  > public
>  > reaction, the purpose here is not to legitimize Bush policy, but rather,
>  > to justify the hawkish Iraq views of nearly all of the Democratic
>  > presidential candidates, with the exception of Kucinich and Richardson
>  > [and Gravel]. In other words, as bad as Bush has been, the US is on the
>  > verge of victory if we just follow the wiser counsel of a Democratic
>  > president like Hillary or Obama. Hence, the creation of a phony antiwar
>  > advocacy group by MoveON.org and the Service Employees International
>  > Union, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, to forestall calls for
>  > immediate withdrawal."
>  >
>  > I think the well-funded MoveON/AAEI campaign ($6.9 million from DNC
>  > contributors for "Iraqi Summer" alone I understand) is much more an
>  > attempt to make the war go away as an issue for the Democratic party
>  > than it is to end the war (much less to effect a complete withdrawal).
>  > But that doesn't mean that real antiwar groups shouldn't have anything
>  > to do with them. (AWARE got some good signs from AAEI for free.)
>  >
>  > I also agree that "Making a small contribution to ending the war is the
>  > most we can usually expect of any particular action that we might take."
>  > Whether a given action does that is of course a prudential decision,
>  > but I'm not sure the "moral choice" is as "simple" as you suggest.
>  > "Will
>  > attending this event likely contribute, in some small way, towards
>  > ending the war" in the sense that Clinton and Obama are now talking of
>  > "ending the war" -- i.e., continuing the US policy of occupation and
>  > control of the Middle East?
>  >
>  > If so, I don't think we should contribute. But it may be even more
>  > important to talk openly about what the anti-war movement should be
>  > doing and why. --CGE
>  >
>  >
>  > Robert Naiman wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Nothing in the event tomorrow will argue for, or in any way support,
>  > > funding the war. I have never done so, and will never do so in
>  > the future.
>  > >
>  > > I harbor no belief that invoking the cost is the "best" argument,
>  > either
>  > > in a moral or a practical sense. Nor, in fact, do I harbor a
>  > belief that
>  > > there is any "best" argument. It is one argument. Different arguments
>  > > for ending the war many move different people, either to
>  > opposition, or
>  > > to intensify opposition, or to take more action on opposition.
>  > Different
>  > > arguments may, at different times, capture the attention of news
>  > media,
>  > > which is an important objective, although obviously not the only
>  > one.
>  > >
>  > > I don't feel I have to support or defend every word, image,
>  > metaphor, or
>  > > argument that comes out of MoveOn, or any other organization, in
>  > order
>  > > to make the decision to help organize an event sponsored by
>  > MoveOn or
>  > > any other organization. For me, it's a simple moral calculation.
>  > MoveOn
>  > > sets up these events across the country. One can help them happen or
>  > > not. More events are good. More people find out about opposition
>  > to the
>  > > war as a result of these events, and may be moved to take more
>  > actions.
>  > > Press may come tomorrow. They may not. New people may feel
>  > addressed -
>  > > we're holding the event at King School, a place where no such
>  > event has
>  > > been held in the past, to my knowledge. One has to try, it seems
>  > to me,
>  > > without guarantees of spectacular success - that seems obvious.
>  > >
>  > > Similarly, it seems to me, most folks receiving my appeal to
>  > attend the
>  > > event tomorrow - if they are not otherwise obligated by a job or
>  > > something - face a simple moral choice. Will attending this event
>  > likely
>  > > contribute, in some small way, towards ending the war? Making a
>  > small
>  > > contribution to ending the war is the most we can usually expect
>  > of any
>  > > particular action that we might take.
>  > >
>  > > In general, I've thought it was not in the best interest of
>  > humanity to
>  > > respond to Carl's attacks - it takes time and energy, time and energy
>  > > which I think I could more productively spend elsewhere - and I
>  > intend
>  > > to generally ignore Carl's apparently inevitable attacks in the
>  > future.
>  > > But I decided to make an exception to my rule in this case. I may
>  > very
>  > > well regret it - live and learn.
>  > >
>  > > On 8/15/07, *C. G. Estabrook* <galliher at uiuc.edu 
> <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu>
>  > <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu>>
>  > > <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu> 
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu>>>> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > It's certainly worthwhile to organize opposition to the war,
>  > but is this
>  > > the best argument to use? Are people really going to change
>  > their minds
>  > > about the war because it's costing too much?
>  > >
>  > > More importantly, if the war is just, then the US (which can
>  > afford it)
>  > > should be paying the price to wage it. But if it's not, then we
>  > > shouldn't be paying for at all.
>  > >
>  > > I don't think the problem is that the US is caught in an
>  > "unwinnable
>  > > civil war." It's that we committed a great crime by
>  > launching the war
>  > > (the same crime for which the German leaders were hanged
>  > after WWII) and
>  > > that we continue the crime by continuing the war.
>  > >
>  > > The solution is not to urge our representatives to vote for a
>  > bill that
>  > > continues funding the war while "forc[ing the president] to
>  > accept real
>  > > timelines to bring our troops home quickly," even if such a
>  > thing is
>  > > possible. It's to demand that our represetnatives not vote
>  > for any
>  > > funding for this war or for the larger policy of which it is a
>  > > part. --CGE
>  > >
>  > > Robert Naiman wrote:
>  > > > Just Foreign Policy is co-sponsoring this event together
>  > with the
>  > > > National Priorities Project.
>  > > > Please come and spread the word.
>  > > > ----
>  > > > Dear MoveOn Member,
>  > > >
>  > > > Did you know that we've already spent more than $456
>  > BILLION on
>  > > the war
>  > > > so far?1 And that it's cost each American household more than
>  > > $4,100?2
>  > > > We've learned that when we remind voters of the costs of
>  > the Iraq
>  > > > war--and all the important priorities that we can't afford
>  > because of
>  > > > it--they're more likely to push Congress to end the war
>  > quickly.
>  > > >
>  > > > So MoveOn members are holding a news conference on Thursday in
>  > > Urbana to
>  > > > release a new report on what the war has cost your area. They
>  > > still need
>  > > > a few more folks to come. Can you make it?
>  > > >
>  > > > Host: Bob N.--fellow MoveOn member
>  > > > Where: King School, Fairview at Goodwin, Urbana
>  > > > When: Thursday, Aug 16 2007, 12:00 PM
>  > > > ...