[Peace-discuss] 33 Billion Dishonest Excuses for War

[C. G. Estabrook]

[In fact, in the 15th Illinois Congressional District, our Congressman, Tim 
Johnson, has said he was wrong to vote for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq 
and will not vote for any more funding for war in the Mideast.  His Democratic 
opponent, David Gill, has not made a similar pledge. But remarkably enough some 
people who say that they are opposed to the war say that will vote for Gill 
nevertheless.  So long as the Democrats can count on that sort of support, there 
will be no change in the war policy.  --CGE]

	33 Billion Dishonest Excuses for War
	Posted by davidswanson
	Tue May 04th 2010, 07:21 AM

If you were to call your congress member's office at 202-224-3121 and ask them 
to vote against spending $33 billion to escalate the war in Afghanistan, they 
would give you one of several common excuses.

If they refuse to tell you what they plan to do, you can let them know that they 
work for you and that you are going to vote against them in November unless they 
commit to opposing the funding of this escalation now. 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. Ultimately, this is the only thing you can tell them that they might 
care about. Still, it helps for them to know that you understand the issue and 
will not be easily swayed. So . . .

If they tell you (as Rep. Delahunt told me) that they like the attention that 
comes from remaining undecided, ask them how they think that sounds to the loved 
ones of those killed. Let them know they could get even more attention by 
tattooing "Loser" on their forehead.

If they tell you they want to vote for aid to Haiti or some other lipstick 
included in the bill, or they want to wait and see what sweet-smelling things 
are packaged into the bill, tell them those things can pass separately and 
constitute no excuse. You want a commitment now to vote No no matter what. This 
is life and death. They need to be trying to block the bill, not just 
considering the possibility of individually voting No if it looks like no one 
will mind.

If they tell you this is the very last off-the-books war supplemental, tell them 
you didn't believe that BS last June and won't believe it now, and that it never 
constituted any excuse for funding war or escalation.

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 causus 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, and that you see through the use of this "timetable" vote as cover for 
funding an escalation. If they point to peace organizations that will accept 
that excuse and only want their support for the "timetable" make clear that 
those organizations do not speak for you.

If they tell you they're waiting to see who else will vote No before they decide 
to vote No, point them to the list at defundwar.org and point out that the 
Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee is on it, but also ask them whether 
they represent their constituents or their colleagues.

If they tell you that they're afraid Fox News and the rest of the "media" would 
attack them, let them know that Glenn Beck has been opposing war funding, that 
this is escalation funding, and that if they say they want the money for jobs at 
home nobody can touch them. On top of which, we'll have their back with 
independent media and media activism. They can encourage media outlets to ask 
President Karzai, when he's in town next week, whether he supports an escalation 
-- if they're not afraid of the answer.

If they make clear that they're afraid of losing funding, directly from the war 
profiteers or laundered through a political party, point them to the fundraising 
that members like Grayson and Kucinich are able to do on their own. Ask them if 
they will be able to live with having funded death for the sake of blood money.

Now, it's just conceivable that they will also try a more substantive excuse on 
you, so be prepared.

If they tell you they're concerned for the safety of the country, point out that 
terrorism has been increased by the global war on terrorism and that there is no 
way escalating a war in Afghanistan doesn't make us less safe. We escalated it 
last year and saw violence increase, with nothing else accomplished. Last week, 
the Pentagon issued a new report finding that one in four Afghans in important 
areas support Karzai's government, violence is up 87% in the past year, European 
allies are bailing out, corruption runs rampant, insurgents still control 
Marjah, the Taliban is growing, and the Afghan government is getting weaker. Our 
military experts say we would need hundreds of thousands of troops and millions 
of civilians to accomplish anything. An inadequate escalation is an end in 
itself, quite literally for those it will kill.

If they tell you the U.S. public supports the war, ask them about polling in 
your district. And tell them this: Back in December, U.S. pollsters asked 
Americans if they supported funding an escalation, and in several polls a 
majority said No. So a lot of congress members voted for more war funding but 
promised to oppose the escalation funding in the spring. Then the White House 
began the escalation, and the pollsters (apparently assuming that our servile 
congress would fund anything the president had already begun, even if the people 
opposed it) stopped polling on the escalation. Polling just on the war, 
pollsters find the US public evenly split or leaning slightly in support. But 
they ask whether people support the president, not how much longer they want the 
war to last or whether that's their top choice for where to spend a trillion 
dollars. Many Americans think they are required to say they support the 
president, and others choose to support a political party, but both big parties 
support the war (which, by the way, will cause a lot of Democrats to stay home 
in November). When Democrats.com funded polling on Iraq that no one else would 
do, we found a majority in favor of Congress cutting off the funding. I'm 
confident we could find that on Afghanistan at least following the coming rise 
in deaths. And this supplemental is not to keep the war going but to escalate 
it, which the American people opposed when asked. Also, nobody has polled on the 
popularity of a congress member saying they want to fund jobs instead of wars. 
And what about the people who are best informed? A recent survey of Kandahar, 
the area where the escalation is planned, found that 94% of the people there 
prefer peace negotiations to U.S. attacks, and 85% see the Taliban as "our 
Afghan brothers." The survey was funded by that radical pacifist organization, 
the United States Army.

If they tell you they have to keep weapons jobs funded to benefit the economy, 
tell them we could have 20 green energy jobs paying $50,000 per year for every 
soldier sent to Afghanistan: a job for that former soldier and 19 more, and 
reduced demand for the oil and gas and pipelines and bases. We're spending as 
much as $400 per gallon to bring gas into Afghanistan where the US military used 
27 million gallons of the stuff last month. We're spending hundreds of millions 
to bribe nations to be part of what we pretend is a coalition effort. We're 
spending at least that much to bribe Afghans to join the right side, an effort 
that has recruited 646 of the Taliban's 36,000 soldiers, but then lost many of 
them who took the money and ran back to the other side. We've spent $268 billion 
on making war on Afghanistan, and using Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz' 
analysis of Iraq we need to multiply that by four or five to get a realistic 
cost including debt, veterans care, energy prices, and lost opportunities. 
Public investment in most other industries or in tax cuts produces more jobs 
than investment in military. In fact, military spending is economically, as well 
as morally, the worst thing Congress can do. And this is economically the worst 
time in many decades to be doing the worst thing you can do.

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. Tell them you 
will stand for no excuses.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/1076

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