[Peace-discuss] The Feingold-McGovern-Jones delusion

[C. G. Estabrook]

	From - AfterDowningStreet.org
	http://vimeo.com/11346739

On Thursday, April 29, 2010, a "Teach-In on Capitol Hill," was held in Room 2168 
of the Rayburn House Building, in Washington, D.C., dealing with the question of 
what the U.S. Congress must do to end the U.S. Wars and secure a peaceful Middle 
East. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) served as the moderator. On the panel were: 
David Swanson, Chris Hedges, Ann Wright, Jeremy Scahill, and Josh Stieber. For 
more details on this event and its sponsors, go to: 
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/51592

Funding an escalation of war in Afghanistan with $33 billion is:
	illegal,
	immoral,
	against the public will,
	economically catastrophic,
	counterproductive on its own terms, and
	a cynically motivated intentional failure
	READ WHY:
	http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/51869

Call Your Congress Member at (202) 224-3121 and tell them that you will vote 
against them if they vote to fund an escalation in Afghanistan.

Sure, their opponent could be worse, but not much, and decent representation 
will only be possible if representatives fear the public more than they fear the 
funders, media, and parties.

If they tell you they want to vote for aid to Haiti or some other lipstick 
included in the bill, tell them those things can pass separately and constitute 
no excuse.  You want a commitment now to vote No no matter what.

If they tell you it's the very last supplemental, tell them you didn't believe 
that BS last June and won't believe it now.

If they tell you they want to obey the president, ask them to read the U.S. 
Constitution and see what's in Article I.  Ask them why they think the framers 
put the war power in the Congress.

If they tell you they want to "support duh troops," tell them that a No vote 
merely avoids or undoes an escalation, thus preventing troops from being sent to 
risk their lives under illegal orders.

If they tell you they're voting for a toothless non-binding request for an exit 
time-table, tell them a growing caucus opposing the funding sends a stronger 
message and builds toward the ability to actually end the war.  Tell them the 
exit strategy approach, last summer, was rightly delayed until after the funding 
vote, and then garnered 138 votes, to which the president merely gave a 
one-finger salute.  Let them know that ineffective rhetoric is no substitute for 
action.

Ask them to commit now to whipping their colleagues to vote No.  And report on 
what they tell you here:  http://defundwar.org

	###

On 5/1/10 9:17 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Remember the Congressional Democrats' lies during the Bush
> administration that they couldn't stop the war - altho' they'd been
> given control of Congress to do just that - because they didn't have 60
> votes in the Senate? In fact they had the 41 votes necessary to prevent
> the funding of the war. But instead they said they'd try to pass a
> "timetable" while they continued to vote to fund the war.
>
> Isn't it obvious that the Feingold-McGovern-Jones timetable can be used
> in the same way? Congress members can vote for the bill - thus proving
> to the growing opposition to the war that they too are against the war -
> and then go along with the funding necessary to 'support our troops'
> (and our administration) and to continue the killing.
>
> The Feingold-McGovern-Jones legislation is a waste of time at best, a
> hypocritical cover for the administration's war at worst. Even if it
> passed, the administration's vicious war policy would not even be
> inconvenienced. We still will be responsible for killing Pakistani
> children and others throughout the Middle East.
>
> Tell your congressional representatives to defund the war - don't hide
> behind a timetable.
>
> ========
> Feingold Introduces Legislation Requiring Timetable
> For Withdrawal From Afghanistan
> 4/14/2010 2:47 PM ET
>
> (RTTNews) - Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wis., was joined by Representatives
> Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and Walter Jones, R-.N.C., Wednesday in
> introducing legislation requiring President Barack Obama to develop a
> flexible timetable to draw down U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
>
> The legislation would require the President to provide a plan and
> timetable for drawing down U.S. forces in Afghanistan and identify any
> variables that could require changes to that timetable.
>
> It would also safeguard U.S. taxpayer dollars by ensuring that all U.S.
> activity in Afghanistan is overseen by an Inspector General.
>
> While the legislation calls for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S.
> troops, however, it does not set a specific date for withdrawal...
>
> http://www.rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1269392
>

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