[Peace-discuss] AfPak: Congress Clears Its Throat

[Robert Naiman]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:28 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Options 2 & 3 look like simply giving cover to representatives to vote
> funding for the war -- as "timeliness" did in the last administration.

I think in another context it would be a serious concern whether
something like the McGovern Amendment provides "cover" for Members to
vote yes on the money. But in this context I don't see it as a serious
concern, because there is virtually zero prospect of defeating the
money, or even having a meaningful battle against it, even if there
were no McGovern Amendment or any other initiative. So the likely
outcomes in this round are 1) pure ratification of the status quo or
2) some creation of a crack in the wall. The political context is such
that few Members need much "cover" to vote yes on the money because
there's hardly any pressure to vote no on the money, nor likely to be
much for the forseeable future. Certainly the overwhelming majority of
Republicans will feel virtually zero pressure to vote no on war money
anytime soon.

> You point out that the McGovern amendment is in fact Obama's position.

Obama's position at the level of rhetoric, not yet at the level of practice.

> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> If people want to call to say no to the money, I support them in doing
>> that.
>>
>> If people want to ask Congress to support the McGovern Amendment, I
>> support that too.
>>
>> If people want to say that the money should go for diplomacy and
>> development, not for war, I support that too.
>>
>> To me the most important thing at this stage is that people call...
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:00 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Would you agree that the message should be, "Vote 'No' on the
>>> Administration's request for 'supplemental' money for the wars in
>>> Afghanistan and Pakistan"?
>>>
>>> --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This week Congress continues its formal consideration of the
>>>> Administration's request for "supplemental" money for the wars in
>>>> Afghanistan and Pakistan, with a decision expected Wednesday by the
>>>> Rules Committee on what amendments will be allowed. Regardless of the
>>>> outcome on the actual money - it's widely expected that the money will
>>>> eventually go though - this is a key window for Congressional action.
>>>> ...
>>>> Likewise, there's never a bad time to call or write your Member of
>>>> Congress expressing concern about U.S. policy in Afghanistan and
>>>> Pakistan, but this week is a particularly good time to make contact,
>>>> whether it's to oppose the money or lobby for conditions. And Tuesday,
>>>> May 12 would be a particularly good day to call, because many advocacy
>>>> groups - including the Friends Committee on National Legislation,
>>>> Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and Just Foreign Policy -
>>>> are calling on Americans to contact Congress on Tuesday in opposition
>>>> to expansion of the war and in support of alternatives to military
>>>> escalation.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/afpak-congress-clears-its_b_201634.html
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/11/133057/102
>>>>
>>>> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/42511
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Robert Naiman
>>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

"It's 11 AM in Washington. Do you know where your foreign policy is?"