Friday, April 24, 2009
No Barack in Iraq, NObama Afghanistan
No Barack in Iraq
NObama Afghanistan
Has it sunk in yet? President Obama recently threw a fast one right past the Peace Bloc in Congress. These Democrats of varying stripes, including our own Blue Dog Mike Thompson, have in the past voted a righteous No on special war appropriations from the Bush regime. It is shocking to see all but 20 Democrats stamping their approval on $130 billion dollars worth of Live War money coming from the new regime.
By tucking these war appropriations back in the budget under the guise of “transparency”, the money for Afghanistan and Iraq became nothing more than a pair of bloody earmarks, easily “overlooked” in the larger factional struggle over the Democrats’ plan to save corporate capitalism. The Republicans played their part in the two party charade by sticking to the economic stimulus theme, meanwhile rejecting paying out money for a war Americans are currently
killing and dying in!
Dennis Kucinich wasn’t fooled. As one of only two Progressive Caucus members voting No to this sleight of hand, Kucinich said: “I will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government. This year, the budget includes $130 billion for war funding. ”
Wasting no time, Obama has followed up with another 77 billion dollars worth of supplemental war appropriations, 2/3rds to Iran, 1/3rd to Afghanistan. "I can't imagine any way I'd vote for it," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, our Democratic congress member directly to the south and a co chair of the 77-member Progressive Caucus. Woolsey fears the president's plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. "I don't think we should be going there," she said.
What are we to make of Obama’s bold move, reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson’s dramatic escalation of the Vietnam War after a 1964 Presidential campaign that played up his peaceful contrast to his opponent’s bellicosity?
Obama, who I thought was being so clever, is perhaps showing what a shallow view he has of the Peace movement. It didn’t all begin with Iraq, Barack dear – although your career may have started there. After 9-11, the Peace movement made it clear world-wide that our sorrow was not an excuse for war against Afghanistan.
The Peace movement called for the apprehension of the criminals responsible - not for the random bombing of women and children and men. Particularly when in Afghanistan US Cold Warriors paid for the schooling and the arming of the Taliban kids we proposed now to root out. Particularly when the “hijackers” were overwhelmingly Saudis! Particularly when the criminals who need to be apprehended bear a strong resemblance to the ones who ran the Bush regime! The ones who said we needed a “New Pearl Harbor.”
But Obama’s view of the Peace Movement may be just Empire Realism. Cheney’s contempt for our opinions has perhaps been inherited along with Gates, Bernancke, Summers, Clinton et.al.
When Mike Thompson had his two week Easter recess, activists swarmed his offices in Ft. Bragg and Eureka to make known an agenda for the future - with Peace at the top of the list. The upcoming vote on this war supplemental is scheduled around Memorial Day. It will tell us a lot about what to expect from Mike Thompson and the onetime Peace Bloc in Congress. Our trillion dollar war has 3 trillion more to catch WW II. We must stop this waste of money and life, and end the war economy. Paul Encimer, Box 162, Piercy Ca 95587 923 4488
PRESIDENT BLUE DOG’S BLOODY EARMARKS and Other Atrocities
I thought Obama pulled quite a fast one on us when he took the 130 billion slated for the current wars – the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan where Americans are this minute killing and dying in – and slipped the billons into the 2010 budget. And every Democrat, our Mike Thompson among them, went along. Except, that is, for 20 Democrats, 11 of the Blue Dog variety, joining the unanimous Republicans against the budget. There were also two Progressives, Ed Markley of New York and Dennis Kucinich, who both voted No.
. Kucinich said: “This budget is a statement of principles for the upcoming year, and I cannot accept it in its entirety. I will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government. This year, the budget includes $130 billion for war funding. The Washington Post reports today another 10,000 troops may be sent to Afghanistan, bringing our total number of troops there to as much as 78,000 by 2010 – a more than 100% increase from today’s troop levels. This budget is a plan that authorizes the expansion of the war. I simply cannot endorse a budget or a plan that sends more of our brave men and women to Afghanistan, a conflict which has the potential to become this generation’s Vietnam.”
Markley and Kucinich would normally have been followed by at least a hundred or more Peace Democrats, including the other 69 members of the Progressive Caucus, led by Lynn Woolsey. This peace bloc, along with our own Mike Thompson, consistently resisted voting for Afghan-Iraq war appropriations,. In neutralizing them, Obama showed an almost Blue Dogish facility for working both sides of the street. By tucking the war appropriations back in the budget under the clever guise of “transparency”, the money for Afghanistan and Iraq became nothing more than a pair of bloody earmarks, easily “overlooked” in the larger factional struggle over the Democrats’ plan to save corporate capitalism.
Democratic Party orthodoxy required budget support as part of Obama’s sink or swim economic stimulus strategy, and Republicans – faithfully playing their partisan role in this two party charade - voted the negative. No heartrending, hair pulling debate during the Budget’s passage.. Nothing to alert us that Bush’s Wars were now Obama’s wars – with the Republicans voting NOT to provide money for a war in which Americans were on the battlefield!
I was still shaking my head, trying to clear the buzz out of my ears, when Obama came forward with his 87 billion dollar demand for Afghanistan. Lynn Woolsey must have cleared her head ,too, because she started vocally opposing this additional extortion.
Some liberal and leftist talking heads - who have been fearfully positing a coming Republican-Blue Dog majority to thwart Obama’s plans – could see their nightmare come true – except that it’s Obama who’s leading this new Blue/Red majority.
I know!?! What a sight! The 71 Progressives and a couple dozen other pinkos opposing Obama’s war requests while Obama’s True Blue Democrats, including 51 actual Blue Dogs, are creating an overwhelming centerforce with collaborating Republicans who can’t bear the contradiction of voting against a war! Except for Ron Paul of course.
Fortunately Congress is on a recess in April until the 20th. The biggest of the Peace Coalitions - United for Peace and Justice (with associated groups like Code Pink, Vets for Peace and the War Resisters League) - has been encouraging Peace people to take our issue directly to Congress members at home. Many of us in this Congressional District are confronting Mike Thompson by appearances at his Ft. Bragg and Eureka offices. A variety of Imperatives will be presented to a Congressional aide to be delivered later via video.
Obama, who I thought was being so clever, is perhaps showing what a shallow view he has of the Peace movement. Does he think he can get away with flaunting the Peace Movement like he did to the Gay movement with Rick Warren. It didn’t all begin with Iraq, Barack dear – although your career may have started there.
After 9-11. Peace people came out in the streets with the message that our sorrow was not an excuse for war against Afghanistan. Peace people wanted criminals apprehended not women and children and men randomly bombed. Particularly when in Afghanistan the US paid for the schooling and the arming of the Taliban kids we wanted now to root out. Particularly when the “hijackers” were overwhelmingly Saudis! Particularly when the criminals who needed to be apprehended bore a strong similarity to the ones running the Bush regime! The ones who said we needed a “New Pearl Harbor.”
But Obama’s shallow view of the Peace Movement may be just Empire Realism: ignore us, we are powerless to effect outcomes. Cheney’s contempt for our opinions has perhaps been inherited along with Gates, Bernacke, Summers, Clinton et.al.
We can expect Mike Thompson to continue to operate as an Empire Realist. Talk about the “New Pearl Harbor” with him and he stops listening. And now he is chair of an Intelligence subcommittee that oversees the budget and activities of the CIA, the DIA and intelligence elements of the State Department and Homeland Security. How can he be expected to prosecute the war criminals when the crimes are being expanded?
The upcoming vote scheduled around Memorial Day on the Afghan 87 billion will tell us a lot about what to expect from Mike Thompson and the onetime Peace Bloc in Congress. We may be starting from scratch.
NObama Afghanistan
Has it sunk in yet? President Obama recently threw a fast one right past the Peace Bloc in Congress. These Democrats of varying stripes, including our own Blue Dog Mike Thompson, have in the past voted a righteous No on special war appropriations from the Bush regime. It is shocking to see all but 20 Democrats stamping their approval on $130 billion dollars worth of Live War money coming from the new regime.
By tucking these war appropriations back in the budget under the guise of “transparency”, the money for Afghanistan and Iraq became nothing more than a pair of bloody earmarks, easily “overlooked” in the larger factional struggle over the Democrats’ plan to save corporate capitalism. The Republicans played their part in the two party charade by sticking to the economic stimulus theme, meanwhile rejecting paying out money for a war Americans are currently
killing and dying in!
Dennis Kucinich wasn’t fooled. As one of only two Progressive Caucus members voting No to this sleight of hand, Kucinich said: “I will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government. This year, the budget includes $130 billion for war funding. ”
Wasting no time, Obama has followed up with another 77 billion dollars worth of supplemental war appropriations, 2/3rds to Iran, 1/3rd to Afghanistan. "I can't imagine any way I'd vote for it," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, our Democratic congress member directly to the south and a co chair of the 77-member Progressive Caucus. Woolsey fears the president's plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. "I don't think we should be going there," she said.
What are we to make of Obama’s bold move, reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson’s dramatic escalation of the Vietnam War after a 1964 Presidential campaign that played up his peaceful contrast to his opponent’s bellicosity?
Obama, who I thought was being so clever, is perhaps showing what a shallow view he has of the Peace movement. It didn’t all begin with Iraq, Barack dear – although your career may have started there. After 9-11, the Peace movement made it clear world-wide that our sorrow was not an excuse for war against Afghanistan.
The Peace movement called for the apprehension of the criminals responsible - not for the random bombing of women and children and men. Particularly when in Afghanistan US Cold Warriors paid for the schooling and the arming of the Taliban kids we proposed now to root out. Particularly when the “hijackers” were overwhelmingly Saudis! Particularly when the criminals who need to be apprehended bear a strong resemblance to the ones who ran the Bush regime! The ones who said we needed a “New Pearl Harbor.”
But Obama’s view of the Peace Movement may be just Empire Realism. Cheney’s contempt for our opinions has perhaps been inherited along with Gates, Bernancke, Summers, Clinton et.al.
When Mike Thompson had his two week Easter recess, activists swarmed his offices in Ft. Bragg and Eureka to make known an agenda for the future - with Peace at the top of the list. The upcoming vote on this war supplemental is scheduled around Memorial Day. It will tell us a lot about what to expect from Mike Thompson and the onetime Peace Bloc in Congress. Our trillion dollar war has 3 trillion more to catch WW II. We must stop this waste of money and life, and end the war economy. Paul Encimer, Box 162, Piercy Ca 95587 923 4488
PRESIDENT BLUE DOG’S BLOODY EARMARKS and Other Atrocities
I thought Obama pulled quite a fast one on us when he took the 130 billion slated for the current wars – the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan where Americans are this minute killing and dying in – and slipped the billons into the 2010 budget. And every Democrat, our Mike Thompson among them, went along. Except, that is, for 20 Democrats, 11 of the Blue Dog variety, joining the unanimous Republicans against the budget. There were also two Progressives, Ed Markley of New York and Dennis Kucinich, who both voted No.
. Kucinich said: “This budget is a statement of principles for the upcoming year, and I cannot accept it in its entirety. I will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government. This year, the budget includes $130 billion for war funding. The Washington Post reports today another 10,000 troops may be sent to Afghanistan, bringing our total number of troops there to as much as 78,000 by 2010 – a more than 100% increase from today’s troop levels. This budget is a plan that authorizes the expansion of the war. I simply cannot endorse a budget or a plan that sends more of our brave men and women to Afghanistan, a conflict which has the potential to become this generation’s Vietnam.”
Markley and Kucinich would normally have been followed by at least a hundred or more Peace Democrats, including the other 69 members of the Progressive Caucus, led by Lynn Woolsey. This peace bloc, along with our own Mike Thompson, consistently resisted voting for Afghan-Iraq war appropriations,. In neutralizing them, Obama showed an almost Blue Dogish facility for working both sides of the street. By tucking the war appropriations back in the budget under the clever guise of “transparency”, the money for Afghanistan and Iraq became nothing more than a pair of bloody earmarks, easily “overlooked” in the larger factional struggle over the Democrats’ plan to save corporate capitalism.
Democratic Party orthodoxy required budget support as part of Obama’s sink or swim economic stimulus strategy, and Republicans – faithfully playing their partisan role in this two party charade - voted the negative. No heartrending, hair pulling debate during the Budget’s passage.. Nothing to alert us that Bush’s Wars were now Obama’s wars – with the Republicans voting NOT to provide money for a war in which Americans were on the battlefield!
I was still shaking my head, trying to clear the buzz out of my ears, when Obama came forward with his 87 billion dollar demand for Afghanistan. Lynn Woolsey must have cleared her head ,too, because she started vocally opposing this additional extortion.
Some liberal and leftist talking heads - who have been fearfully positing a coming Republican-Blue Dog majority to thwart Obama’s plans – could see their nightmare come true – except that it’s Obama who’s leading this new Blue/Red majority.
I know!?! What a sight! The 71 Progressives and a couple dozen other pinkos opposing Obama’s war requests while Obama’s True Blue Democrats, including 51 actual Blue Dogs, are creating an overwhelming centerforce with collaborating Republicans who can’t bear the contradiction of voting against a war! Except for Ron Paul of course.
Fortunately Congress is on a recess in April until the 20th. The biggest of the Peace Coalitions - United for Peace and Justice (with associated groups like Code Pink, Vets for Peace and the War Resisters League) - has been encouraging Peace people to take our issue directly to Congress members at home. Many of us in this Congressional District are confronting Mike Thompson by appearances at his Ft. Bragg and Eureka offices. A variety of Imperatives will be presented to a Congressional aide to be delivered later via video.
Obama, who I thought was being so clever, is perhaps showing what a shallow view he has of the Peace movement. Does he think he can get away with flaunting the Peace Movement like he did to the Gay movement with Rick Warren. It didn’t all begin with Iraq, Barack dear – although your career may have started there.
After 9-11. Peace people came out in the streets with the message that our sorrow was not an excuse for war against Afghanistan. Peace people wanted criminals apprehended not women and children and men randomly bombed. Particularly when in Afghanistan the US paid for the schooling and the arming of the Taliban kids we wanted now to root out. Particularly when the “hijackers” were overwhelmingly Saudis! Particularly when the criminals who needed to be apprehended bore a strong similarity to the ones running the Bush regime! The ones who said we needed a “New Pearl Harbor.”
But Obama’s shallow view of the Peace Movement may be just Empire Realism: ignore us, we are powerless to effect outcomes. Cheney’s contempt for our opinions has perhaps been inherited along with Gates, Bernacke, Summers, Clinton et.al.
We can expect Mike Thompson to continue to operate as an Empire Realist. Talk about the “New Pearl Harbor” with him and he stops listening. And now he is chair of an Intelligence subcommittee that oversees the budget and activities of the CIA, the DIA and intelligence elements of the State Department and Homeland Security. How can he be expected to prosecute the war criminals when the crimes are being expanded?
The upcoming vote scheduled around Memorial Day on the Afghan 87 billion will tell us a lot about what to expect from Mike Thompson and the onetime Peace Bloc in Congress. We may be starting from scratch.
