As Congress Fails to Act, Peoples Organize to End War
The peoples here and worldwide are vigorously stepping up their fight to end the war in Iraq and stop all aggressive U.S. wars. The Iraqis are persisting in resistance without let up, with the large majority of actions (the Pentagon estimates 80 percent) directed against the U.S. military. Worldwide demonstrations are planned for the 4th anniversary of the war in March.
Here in the U.S., a broad campaign to occupy Congressional offices is underway, both in Washington, DC and at local offices. Student walkouts, demonstrations to cut funds for war, teach-ins and more are also planned for February.
There is growing anger with Congress for its refusal to take immediate action to end the war. Democrats are the most active in proposing bills and resolutions on Iraq. They face a serious legitimacy crisis as a party who won power on an anti-war vote and now must deliver. Sentiment among the people is determined and straight forward — end the war now, bring all the troops home, no to all aggressive wars — with opposition to attacking Iran also widespread. People are watching closely and are not about to be diverted by the numerous non-binding resolutions limited to “expressing the sense of Congress” against President George W. Bush’s escalation of war. Many are aware that only two Senators, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Benjamin Carden of Maryland, are calling for immediate withdrawal.
More and more people are coming to the conclusion that if massive demonstrations, occupation of Congressional offices, tens of thousands of signatures on petitions, untold letters, phone calls, and the actual vote itself will not force Congress to submit to the will of the people, then clearly the electoral system itself must be targeted. People want and need an anti-war government that immediately acts to bring all U.S. troops home and stops funding for war. They want the giant war budget to become an anti-war budget, geared toward defending the rights of all, here and abroad. Discussion is underway on what steps can be taken to increase the number of anti-war candidates for 2008 and to bring the people themselves to power to govern. To many, the notion of being a candidate seems far-fetched, yet completely necessary. Now, more and more are saying, is the time for political empowerment of the people.[TOP]
Activists Occupy Congressional Offices to End the War in Iraq
Ten anti-war activists led by Father Jerry Zawada were arrested February 5, on orders from Senator John McCain’s office after members of the peace groups Voices for Creative Nonviolence, Veterans for Peace and CodePink tried to meet with the Senator’s legislative aide to discuss ending funding for the war. Activists sang the names of the 75 U.S. servicemen and women from Arizona who have been killed in the war in Iraq, interspersed with the names of Iraqi civilians killed, and collectively chanted “We remember you,” after each name and dropped a flower petal on the ground. They delivered framed photos of Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers from Arizona who have been killed in Iraq and carried banners reading “Stop Funding War!” and “Americans Want a Prez for Peace.”
This is just the start of a national campaign of nonviolent occupations of the offices of Members of Congress who support the war and the war president (see article below on Campaign of Civil Disobedience). Let them have a tiny sense of what Iraqis are experiencing — let them feel a tiny sliver of the inconvenience of an occupation. Let’s get them to behave like we have a democracy!
In Fairbanks, Alaska, actions are underway at the offices of Senators Murkowski and Stevens and Representative Young. In Northern Alabama, join a sit-in inside or a demonstration outside the office of Representative Bud Cramer. In Arizona, creative demonstrations are being organized against Senator John McCain. Activists in Los Angeles have planned protests at various offices. In the South Bay area, sit-ins are underway in the offices of Representatives Honda, Lofgren, and Eshoo. In Des Moines, Iowa, you can sit-in at the offices of Senator Grassley and Rep. Boswell. In Illinois, the focus is on Representatives Jesse Jackson, Ray La Hood, and Mark Kirk, and Senators Richard Durbin and Barack Obama. All over Minnesota, every Tuesday, constituents will enter the offices of their Congresspersons and Senators at 9:00 am and begin a vigil until 5:00 pm or whenever the offices close. Actions are underway in Portland Oregon, St. Louis and Seattle as well.
Join these actions — or organize your own!
http://vcnv.org/occupation-project/campaign-descriptions[TOP]
Occupy Congressional Offices to Demand No Funding for War
February 5
The Occupation Project officially begins. President Bush will submit his supplemental spending request to Congress either this week, or he may have submitted it the prior week. Some press reports are that he will submit the request on February 5 itself.
This is the date on which, in 2003, Colin Powell made his infamous speech to the United Nations justifying the U.S. led invasion of Iraq.
Ehren Watada’s court martial is scheduled to begin. He has joined many others, including Katherine Jashinksi, Camilo Mejia, Kevin Benderman, and Pablo Paredes, in risking imprisonment—and being imprisoned—rather than participating in the Iraq war.
February 12
John Murtha, Chair of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, states he will hold hearings on the supplemental spending package. Unfortunately, committee and subcommittee hearing schedules and topics are typically not announced until the week they are to occur. Will this be the week that the Murtha chaired hearings begin?
February 19
Congress is in recess this week. All Representatives will be in their home districts and all Senators will be in their home states. Also, on February 22, 1943, Sophie Scholl, Hans Scholl, and Christoph Probst—members of the White Rose student resistance movement in Nazi Germany—were found guilty and executed for their actions.
March 5
Last year, the House Appropriations Committee held a single day hearing during this week on the supplemental spending bill and passed it by voice vote. Will the same happen this year?
March 12
In both 2005 and 2006, the full House of Representatives passed the supplemental spending bill submitted by President Bush. While it cannot be definitively stated when the full House will vote on the supplemental spending bill this year, the speed with which it passed in 2005 and 2006 gives some indication of when it will be voted upon this year.
Each year, Congress took a one week recess that began immediately before St. Patrick’s Day. This year, Congress will not take its recess until the week of April 2 and it will be a two week recess this year.
Hearings in the Senate Appropriations Committee will likely also have begun by this time.
March 16 to 19
Declaration of Peace is organizing for nonviolent civil disobedience to occur throughout the U.S. during this week. It is entirely possible that this period will be immediately prior to a full House vote on the supplemental spending bill. For more information, visit DoP’s website at www.declarationofpeace.org [see also the March on the Pentagon, in D.C. on March 17, www.troopsoutnow.org].
April 2
Congress begins a two week recess. The House will almost certainly have voted on the supplemental spending bill prior to the start of this recess. Senators will be in their home states and Representatives will be in their home districts. As it regards the supplemental spending bill, the focal point will be on Senators at this time.
However, it now appears that President Bush will include full Iraq war funding for October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 in the regular budget request he will submit to Congress (also this February). So office visits to Representatives demanding that they vote against funding the Iraq war in the regular budget process will also be necessary during this recess.
April 9
In 1945, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed on April 9 for his participation in the German resistance to the Nazi regime and Hitler. What is the responsibility of citizens in a country that has launched a World War?
April 16
Congress returns to D.C. The full Senate will likely vote on the supplemental spending bill sometime between now and the end of April. In 2005, the Senate passed the supplemental spending bill on or about April 16. In 2006, the Senate passed the supplemental spending bill on or about May 4.
[TOP]
Campaign of Civil Disobedience to
End Iraq War Funding
On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his infamous speech to the United Nations in which he set forth the deceptions about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program. At the conclusion of his speech, no doubt remained: the U.S. invasion of Iraq was imminent.
On February 5, 2007, the Occupation Project will launch a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience focused upon Representatives and Senators who refuse to publicly pledge to vote against any additional funding for the Iraq war. The campaign will continue at least through the start of April. Let there be no doubt that the antiwar movement will use all means of nonviolence to end our country’s war in and occupation of Iraq.
Initiated by Voices for Creative Nonviolence, the campaign is growing exponentially as such national organizations as Veterans for Peace, CodePink, Declaration of Peace, National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance and Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space join the campaign.
The premise is simple. Representatives and Senators: publicly pledge to vote against the $100 billion supplemental war spending package which President Bush will submit in early February or we will occupy your offices.
The premise is simple. This will not be a singular action on a single day. We will return again and again and again until you pledge to vote against funds for the Iraq war.
Organizing for campaigns is underway in states from Maine to Ohio to North Carolina to Iowa to Oregon. While the Occupation Project is a national campaign, it is based firmly within the reality that local organizers will understand what forms of nonviolent civil disobedience will work best in their locality, the best targets and the frequency with which actions will occur. Some will occupy offices on a weekly basis. Others every other week. Others at key times during the hearing and vote process.
Three models are emerging. In Illinois, affinity groups will engage in at least one act of civil disobedience each week over at least an eight-week period of time, with the potential to extend through the end of April. In Wisconsin, a portion of the campaign will focus upon Representative David Obey, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, with multiple actions, every other week, which include constituents from his district as well as people from outside his district (given his role as committee chair). In Iowa, the Catholic Worker movement is taking the lead, organizing the campaign as one of sustained sporadic civil disobedience — that is, a weekly vigil will be held at the federal building with at least three acts of civil disobedience planned in the power brokers’ offices. In Maine, organizers are building upon their long-standing campaigns that focus upon the state’s Senators.
Key time periods to act include the weeks of:
February 5, most likely the week when President Bush will submit to Congress his $100 billion supplemental spending request to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the so-called global war on terror;
February 19, when Congress is in recess and elected officials are in their home districts and states;
February 26 and March 5, weeks when the House Appropriations Committee will most likely hold hearings on the bill (if 2005 and 2006 are any guide). The Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations might also hold hearings this year.
March 12, which most likely will be leading up to a full House vote on the war funding. In 2005 and 2006, the House voted just prior to March 16 (when they went into a week long recess).
April 2 through 13, when Congress is in recess. The House will most likely have voted on the war funding by now and so maximum pressure should be exerted upon Senators during this time.
April 16 Tax Day, with a focus upon Senators. Through the end of April, during which the full Senate will most likely vote on the funds.
And what of the argument that it is necessary for Representatives and Senators to vote for President Bush’s war funding request in order to not place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way? Consider the following:
Congress has already appropriated $19.7 billion for the current fiscal year for procurement — to buy new weapons, equipment and ammunition. The Associated Press reports that an additional $26.7 billion will be sought for procurement for this fiscal year. This total of $46.4 billion is double the $23 billion that Congress appropriated for the last fiscal year. Indeed, this nearly equals the $47.3 billion in procurement funds appropriated by Congress for the last 3 fiscal years combined.
Procurement money rolls over from one fiscal year to the next. It does not have to be spent in the year in which it is appropriated. Indeed, in November 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that as of June 2006, $16.8 billion remained to be obligated by September 30, or be carried over to the current fiscal year (which began October 1).
Procurement money rolls over because, as reported by the Congressional Research Service, it takes anywhere from 1 to 3 years from the time money is appropriated to the time equipment or weapons are available and in the field. Money appropriated for procurement now is money intended to fund the war for up to three years into the future.
Operations & Maintenance (O & M) is the other immense portion of the war budget. In 2004, $37.2 billion was appropriated for O & M. In 2006, it had jumped to $59.6 billion — a 60 percent increase in just two years.
Already Congress has appropriated $41 billion for O & M this fiscal year. According to the A.P., the supplemental spending request will seek up to an additional $41.5 billionfor a total of $81.5 billion for Operation & Maintenance. That’s a 37 percent increase from last year and over a 100 percent increase since 2004.
It is impossible to track for which purposes these O & M funds are used. According to a November 2006 GAO report, in fiscal year 2005 nearly 26 percent of the funds expended in Operation & Maintenance were categorized by the Defense Department as “other supplies and equipment” and “other services and miscellaneous contracts.”
Clearly sufficient funds are already in the pipeline for a safe and effective withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq. The Pentagon can utilize its budgetary transfer authority for any minor additional funds that might be necessary for such a withdrawal.
In what manner has the cost of Operation & Maintenance escalated so dramatically in Iraq as to justify a 37 percent increase in funding? How is it possible to justify appropriating funds to buy weapons, equipment and ammunition that won’t reach the troops in the field for at least 1 to 3 years? How long will Representatives and Senators hide behind the excuse that they have to vote for war funds in order to support the troops?
Representatives and Senators. Do your Constitutional duty. Force the withdrawal of U.S. troops to the safety of their homes. Support the troops by voting against any additional war funding.
Jeff Leys is Co-Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence: www.vcnv.org or (773) 878-3815.
[TOP]
Student Strike Against the War
Students on various campuses across the country are planning to walk out, strike or demonstrate on February 15, which marks the 4th anniversary of when millions of people came out around the world to protest President George W. Bush’s planned war on Iraq. Actions are taking place at Mills College, Occidental College, San Francisco State, Sonoma State, UC Berkeley and Santa Barbara, Fordham in NYC, Georgia State University, University of North Carolina, Greensboro and others. Now is not the time to be waiting for Congress to make slow incremental steps towards some eventual phased withdrawal. Now is the time for millions of people to get out and demand an end to the war immediately and that the Bush administration be impeached for war crimes.
Statement of the Columbia Coalition Against the War, NYC
We, the Columbia Coalition against the War, are staging a strike followed by a teach-in on February 15, 2007. We are inviting the entire Columbia community, including students, faculty, staff, and the administration, to join us in publicly and actively opposing the unjust War in Iraq. We call upon the people of this country — especially our generation — to shoulder the responsibility of bringing an immediate end to this war.
This unjust war began without provocation and continues despite the opposition of the vast majority of American and Iraqi people. This war, criminal in its violation of the Geneva Conventions, has resulted in a catastrophic loss of life — 3,300 coalition troops and more than 655,000 of our Iraqi brothers and sisters. In the name of this war, and the “war on terror,” there has been a broad assault on our civil liberties including the violation of habeas corpus, condoning of torture, and rampant racism against Arabs and Muslims. This war has made the world less safe, and less free.
We strongly encourage the students of Columbia to walk out of classes in opposition to this war. We call on the faculty and administration to set aside business as usual, join our strike, and issue statements of support. Columbia, as a global university, has a responsibility to take a proactive stance against this illegal war.
By investing in corporations crucial to the war effort, our university has aligned its financial future with America’s protracted occupation of Iraq. We therefore call on the administration to divest from these corporations for the duration of the war to hasten the war’s end. […]
We will work to build support in our schools and our communities for resistance to the war. We will give voice to the majority of Americans who have expressed their strong opposition to the war. We will show the leaders in Congress that we, the people, are the true “deciders.” We will continue to struggle to end the war and bring the troops home now.
Call for Strike from Columbia College, Chicago Students
In the face of massive opposition to the war and destruction of the Middle East, with global opposition to the legalization and widespread use of torture and illegal detentions, President Bush has announced that he is going forward unapologetically with his proposed troop escalation. Coupled with the 21,000 troop surge has come threats against the sovereign nation of Iran and its diplomats in Iraq. If Bush is allowed to go forward with this, the horrific implications for the people of the world will be irreversible.
The time has passed to sit on our hands and wait for politicians to step up and stop this. The Democratic Party’s refusal to take a stand against this is unacceptable. The debate in this country cannot remain focused on how to fight this war more efficiently: This war is illegal, immoral, and Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war violates international law.
In the last two years, we have seen countless atrocities carried out on Iraqi civilians, increased violence in Iraq, the annihilation of habeas corpus, and the legalization of torture. As the Bush administration is gearing up for an attack of Iran, waiting two more years for this to stop is unconscionable.
We will no longer go on with business as usual as if this is not happening. For millions of Iraqis, daily life is characterized by bloodshed and horror. For Iraqi civilians, networking, grades, and career planning are not options. In solidarity with the civilians of Iraq and in opposition to the horrific crimes of our government, we the students of Columbia College Chicago are joining University of California - Santa Barbara and Columbia University by declaring a student strike on February 15. This strike commemorates the largest anti-war protests in human history 4 years ago. We will send a message to the world that we will not be complicit in war crimes. We are no longer asking, but demanding, that the war end now, and the Bush administration be impeached and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity . [...][TOP]
For Your Information
Congress Refuses to Take Action to End the War
While numerous bills and resolutions on Iraq have been introduced in Congress, no action has been taken. Indeed, the one resolution in the Senate passed out of committee and with potential for debate on the floor has now been blocked. It was a non-biding resolution simply opposing the escalation of the war by President George W. Bush. The fact that no action has been taken, when it readily could be, is a reflection of the common stand of the ruling circles to continue on the path of war and fascism to secure U.S. world domination. However, it is also the case that the increasing conflicts within the ruling circles are expressing themselves in these various fights in Congress on Iraq.
For example, a leading Republican, Senator John Warner, former head of the Armed Services Committee and now its ranking Republican, put forward a resolution opposing the Bush escalation. His resolution also included wording opposing any cut to funding for the war. Chuck Hagel, a potential presidential candidate for the Republicans also put forward a non-binding resolution, alongside Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine and two leading Democrats, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
The Hagel resolution said, “It is not in the national interests of the U.S. to deepen its military involvement in Iraq.” The Warner resolution said instead, “the Senate disagrees with the ‘plan’ to augment our forces by 21,500.” After some wrangling, the Warner resolution won out. However, debate on the resolution was blocked when Democrats refused to also debate two other Republican resolutions and Republicans refused to allow the Warner resolution to be debated. Efforts to avoid a vote on the issue of cutting off funding played a main role.
In addition to these resolutions, Senators Edward Kennedy and Christopher Dodd, senior Democrats, submitted bills limited to prohibiting the use of funds for escalation, but allowing them for continued war in Iraq. However, debate on Iraq will be delayed in the Senate until after emergency appropriations for the federal budget, necessary to keep government functioning, is dealt with. There is a deadline of February 15 for that, or government will shut down.
The House, which initially said it would wait for the Senate, is now scheduled to have debate on a non-binding resolution opposing the escalation starting Tuesday, February 13. The House Intelligence Committee also voted unanimously, on February 7, to allow all 435 House members to see the classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq sent to the White House last week. The NIE is approved by the heads of all 16 intelligence agencies. It predicts that without successful efforts to rein in insurgent violence and political extremism, the overall security situation “will continue to deteriorate.” The unanimous decision of Republicans and Democrats alike, to make it available to all House members, is in opposition to Bush and the executive’s long-standing efforts to restrict materials while providing disinformation. The House leadership also decided every member will have 5 minutes to speak on the resolution.
The action by the Intelligence Committee and debate in the House reflect growing opposition from within the Republican Party to Bush. Another example is the plan proposed by House Republican leader John A. Boehner, and other senior Republicans. It would require what are termed “benchmarks of progress” in Iraq and monthly reports by Bush to Congress on the “progress.”
To date, Congress has refused to even debate the demand of the people to end the war now and bring all the troops home. They are instead attempting to divert to the issue of escalation. More generally, their fights center on 1) how to escape failure in Iraq while still maintaining U.S. empire and its drive for world domination; 2) how to salvage the credibility of the Democrats in the face of the determined stand of the broad majority against war; and 3) how to maintain credibility as a legislative body and still support Bush.[TOP]
Senate Poll On Iraq
Majority in Senate Pro-War
A recent poll of all 100 U.S. Senators asks how they voted on the war in 2002, [when Congress authorized use of force against Iraq], whether they regret that vote, whether they support escalating the war, and whether they support ending the war by a certain date. This fairly well cuts through the courageous debate over whether to have a debate over whether to meaninglessly dissent from Bush’s escalation plans for a war that most Americans want ended.
The first thing that stands out is that Senators Robert Byrd and Benjamin Cardin, rather than saying that yes they support ending the occupation by a certain date, both wrote in the word “Immediate.” That is two Senators for ending the thing. Ninety-eight to go.
If you look at Democrats who voted yes on the war, 11 of them regret having done so. Cantwell wrote in “No Comment,” apparently unable to determine whether or not she regrets slaughtering 655,000 people on the basis of lies. Dorgan also had no comment, and also had no comment on whether he ever wants to end the war. Reid — the guy who is supposedly “leading” — had the same responses as Dorgan. Lincoln had no comment on anything except having voted for the war.
Hillary Clinton’s response is worse, however. She voted for the war, does not regret it, and does not support ending it by a certain date. She does oppose the escalation, which fairly well displays the worthlessness of opposition to the escalation. Joseph Lieberman had the same responses as Clinton, except that he supports the escalation. Both Nelsons also do not regret having supported the war and have no interest in ending it. Chuck Schumer does not regret backing the war and has no comment on ending it. Quite an opposition party, eh?
But there is a bright side: 11 Democrats and 3 Republicans said they regretted having voted for this war, and 22 Democrats and 1 Independent said they support setting a certain date to end the ongoing genocide or — in the case of 2 Democrats — ending it immediately. Another 11 Senators did not say no to setting a date, but rather replied with “undecided” or “no comment.”
The responses on the escalation, or “surge,” are interesting as well. Forty-eight Democrats, one Independent, and ten Republicans oppose the escalation, while a bunch more indicated “conditionally” or “no comment,” etc. That is a majority of Senators on record as opposing something that our monarch has already done without asking their approval, but something that they cannot seem to even get straight on deciding whether to debate. […]
[TOP]
A survey of all 100 Senators was recently conducted by the Politico, asking the Senators the following four questions on Iraq:
1. Did you vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 2002? Sixty-two were yes votes, twenty were no votes, and eighteen members were not in the House or the Senate at the time. The eighteen members who are new to Congress since 2002 are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
2. If you voted yes, do you regret your vote? Of the sixty-two who voted yes, fourteen now say they regret their vote, ten offered no comment, and thirty-eight said they did not regret their vote. The Democrats who did not regret their yes vote are New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.). Four Democrats also gave no comment: Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Byron Dorgan (ND), Blanche L. Lincoln (Ariz.), and Harry Reid (Nev.), head of the Senate. Joseph Lieberman, (Conn.) regrets nothing.
3. Do you support the “surge” of troops proposed by President George W. Bush? Fifty-eight said no, thirty-six said yes, four gave no comment, and two were undecided. In the yes column, are five Republicans who, in an attempt to have it both ways, wrote “conditionally.” These include Saxby Chambliss (SC), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Larry Craig (Ida.). John McCain of Arizona wrote yes.
4. Do you support a timetable/fixed date for withdrawal? Sixty-seven said no, twenty-three said yes, but only two said “immediate,” Robert Byrd (W. Va.) and Benjamin Cardin (Md.). Eight Senators gave no comment, and two were undecided. The only Republicans who did not say no were Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Sununu (NH) who both said “no comment.” A wide range of Democrats, nineteen, said either no, undecided, or no comment. Below is the link to the complete poll.
http://www.politico.com/pdf/senator_table.pdf
[TOP]
Current Legislation on Iraq in Congress
Bills and resolutions in Congress fall into two main categories. There are those that oppose the escalation of the war by President George W. Bush and there are those dealing with the war itself. Those dealing with the war itself call for troop redeployment or withdrawal, some with a deadline and some without. We provide below the legislation as of January 28, divided by those dealing with escalation and those with the war, and then by whether it is a Senate or House bill, in the order they were introduced. Co-sponsors, both the number and who is involved, give an indication of the support for the bill. The standing of the sponsor also contributes to whether or not it will be given consideration by top congressional leadership.
Senator Barack Obama introduced legislation January 30 and Senator Hillary Clinton has announced that she will also introduce legislation. Both are presidential candidates. Voice of Revolution will address their bills in coming issues
Bills on Escalation of the War
Senate Bills
S. 233 — Sponsor: Edward Kennedy (D-MA) “To prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States military forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007.” Introduced: January 9, 2007 S. 233 is identical to the bill introduced in the House, H.R. 353, by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA-7). Cosponsors (7): Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tom Harkin (D-IA), John Kerry (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Robert Menedez (D- NJ), and Bernard Sanders (I-VT) Summary: S. 233 prohibits the use of funds to increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq above the number which existed as of January 9, 2007, without specific authorization from Congress.
S. 308 — Sponsor: Christopher Dodd (D-CT) “To prohibit an escalation in United States military forces in Iraq without prior authorization by Congress.” Introduced: January 17, 2007 Cosponsors (2): Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Summary: S. 308 reportedly states that the authority given by Congress in 2002 to intervene in Iraq never contemplated that U.S. troops would be engaged in a civil war in Iraq, and the President must now come back to Congress to seek authorization for this new mission. Any additional increase in troop levels beyond January 16, 2007 levels must be specifically authorized by Congress. While other legislation seeks to limit the number of new troops in Iraq through funding mechanisms, S. 308 seeks to limit the escalation through the authorization process instead. There is ample precedent for such action — in 1973, 1983, 1984, and 2000 Congress enacted provisions limiting the number of U.S. troops in Vietnam, Lebanon, Europe, and Colombia.
House Bills
H.R. 353 — Sponsor: Edward Markey (R-MA-7) “To prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007.” Introduced: January 9, 2007 H.R. 353 is identical to the bill introduced in the Senate, S. 233, by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). Cosponsors (17): Neil Abercrombie (D-HI-1), Michael Capuano (D-MA-8), John Conyers (D-MI-14), Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4), William Delahunt (D-MA-10), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-3), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-7), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY-22), Barbara Lee (D-CA-9), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-14), Jim McDermott (D-WA-7), James McGovern (D-MA- 3), Martin Meehan (D-MA-5), John Olver (D-MA-1), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL-9), Mike Thompson (D-CA-1), and John Tierney (D-MA-6) Summary: H.R. 353 prohibits the use of funds to increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq above the number which existed as of January 9, 2007, without specific authorization from Congress.
H.R. 438 — Sponsor: Jesse Jackson (D-IL-2) “To prohibit an escalation in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces deployed in Iraq.” Introduced: January 12, 2007 Cosponsors (1): Barbara Lee (D-CA-9) Summary: H.R. 438 stipulates that funding made available to the Department of Defense may not be used to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq above the number serving there as of January 1, 2007, unless a specific authorization for the troop increase is enacted into law.
House Resolutions (non-binding)
H.Res. 41 — Sponsor: Martin Meehan (D-MA-5) “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that an increase in number of members of the United States Forces deployed in Iraq is the wrong course of action and that a drastic shift in the political and diplomatic strategy of the United States is needed to help secure and stabilize Iraq.” Introduced: January 9, 2007 Cosponsors (41): Neil Abercrombie (D-HI-1), Thomas Allen (D-ME-1), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-2), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3), Lois Capps (D-CA-23), Michael Capuano (D-MA-8), John Conyers (D-MI-14), Elijah Cummings (D-MD-7), Peter DeFazio (D- OR-4), William Delahunt (D-MA-10), Chaka Fattah (D-PA-2), Barney Frank (D-MA-4), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-7), Phil Hare (D-IL-17), Jane Harman (D-CA-36), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY- 22), Mazie Hirono (D-HI-2), Michael Honda (D-CA-15), Jay Inslee (D-WA-1), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX-18), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI-1), Barbara Lee (D-CA-9), John Lewis (D-GA-5), Stephen Lynch (D-MA-9), Edward Markey (D-MA-7), Betty McCollum (D-MN-4), James McGovern (D-MA-3), James Moran (D-VA-8), Richard Neal (D-MA-2), John Olver (D-MA-1), Donald Payne (D-NJ-10), Steven Rothman (D-NJ-9), Janice Schakowsky (D- IL-9), Adam Smith (D-WA-9), Hilda Solis (D-CA-32), Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA-13), Ellen Tauscher (D-CA-10), Diane Watson (D-CA-33), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA-6), David Wu (D-OR-1) Summary: H.Res. 41 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that increasing U.S. troops in Iraq above the present level of 132,000 is “the wrong course of action and should not be done without an express authorization for the increase in an Act of Congress.” H.Res. 41 goes on to state that a “drastic shift in the political and diplomatic strategy” is needed for the U.S. “to secure and stabilize Iraq so that the United States can begin a phased withdrawal of United States troops as soon as possible.”
H.Con.Res. 23 — Sponsor: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) “Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not order an escalation in the total number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq.” Introduced: January 10, 2007 Summary: Citing the number of U.S. forces killed and wounded in Iraq, the estimated $379 billion the U.S. has spent on the war, and the opinion of Gen. John Abizaid that more U.S. troops in Iraq would “prevent the Iraqis from doing more,” H.Con.Res. 23 expresses the sense of Congress that “the President should not order an escalation in the total number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq.” Cosponsors (30): Michael Capuano (D-MA-8), Julia Carson (D-IN-7), William “Lacy” Clay (D-MO-1), Steve Cohen (D-TN-9), John Conyers (D-MI-14), Elijah Cummings (D-MD-7), Danny Davis (D-IL-7), Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4), Michael Doyle (D-PA-14), Chaka Fattah (D-PA-2), Raul Grijalva (D- AZ-7), Mazie Hirono (D-HI-2), Rush Holt (D-NJ-12), Michael Honda (D-CA-15), Jesse Jackson (D-IL-2), Henry “Hank” Johnson (D-GA-4), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI-13), Barbara Lee (D-CA-9), Stephen Lynch (D-MA-9), Gwen Moore (D-WI-4), Jerry Nadler (D-NY-8), Donald Payne (D-NJ-10), Steven Rothman (D-NJ-9), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL-9), Jose Serrano (D-NY- 16), Hilda Solis (D-CA-32), Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA-13), Diane Watson (D-CA-33), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA-6), David Wu (D-OR-1)
Bills on the War
Senate
S. 121 — Sponsor: Russell Feingold (D-WI) “To provide for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.” Introduced: January 4, 2007 Cosponsors (1): Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Summary: S. 121 calls for redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq no later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of S. 121, while leaving a minimal level of U.S. forces in Iraq to “engage directly in targeted counterterrorism activities, train Iraq security forces, and protect United States infrastructure and personnel in Iraq.” S. 121 stipulates that the Secretaries of State and Defense present a joint strategy for redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq no later than 60 days after S. 121 is enacted.
House
H.R. 413 — Sponsor: Sam Farr (D-CA-17) “To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and to require the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.” Introduced: January 11, 2007 Cosponsors: none Summary: H.R. 413 repeals the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and calls on the President to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in a “safe and orderly manner.”
H.R. 455 — Sponsor: Jerry Nadler (D-NY-8) “To provide for the protection of members of the United States Armed Forces and for their withdrawal from Iraq by December 31, 2007.” Introduced: January 12, 2007 Cosponsors (1): Maurice Hinchey (D-NY-22) Summary: H.R. 455, also known as the “Protect the Troops and Bring Them Home Act of 2007,” calls for the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq commencing no later than 30 days after the enactment of H.R. 455 and finishing no later than December 31, 2007. H.R. 455 cuts off funding for Department of Defense operations in Iraq except for the continued protection of American forces while they are withdrawing on the aforementioned timetable, but does provide financial assistance for consultations with international organizations, funding for Iraqi Security Forces or an international stabilization force, and economic and reconstruction assistance to Iraq.
H.R. 508 — Sponsor: Lynn Woolsey (D-CA-6) “To require United States military disengagement from Iraq, to provide United States assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq, and for other purposes.” Introduced: January 17, 2007 Cosponsors (16): Barbara Lee (D-CA-9), Maxine Waters (D-CA-35), Diane Watson (D-CA-33), James McGovern (D-MA-3), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-7), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10), Barney Frank (D-MA-4), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY-22), John Conyers (D-MI-14), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-8), Chaka Fattah (D-PA-2), Bob Filner (D-CA-51), William “Lacy” Clay (D-M0-1), Donald Payne (D-NJ-10), Steve Cohen (D-TN-9), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX-18). Summary: H.R. 508, also known as the “Bring the Troops Home and Iraqi Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007,” mandates that all U.S. troops and military contractors in Iraq return to the U.S. or redeploy outside of the Middle East within six months of the date of enactment, at which point funding obligated or expended to deploy or continue to deploy U.S. forces in Iraq will be terminated. H.R. 508 repeals the 2002 authorization of force resolution approved to go to war with Iraq. It authorizes U.S. support for replacing U.S. troops and contractors with an international stabilization force, prohibits any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, accelerates U.S. troop and contractor assistance for training of a permanent Iraqi police force, and authorizes a wide array of non- military U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq, including a compensation fund for Iraqi noncombatant civilian casualties. Finally, H.R. 508 guarantees health care for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts and, upon completion of U.S. military disengagement from Iraq, creates a bipartisan, joint select committee of Congress to be comprised of 18 House and Senate Members.
H.R. 511 — Sponsor: Sam Johnson (R-TX-3) “To pledge the faithful support of Congress to members of the United States Armed Forces serving in harm’s way.” Introduced: January 17, 2007 Cosponsors (16): Roy Blunt (R-MO-7), John Boehner (R-MO-7), Steve Buyer (R-IN-4), Eric Cantor (R-VA-7), John Carter (R-TX-31), Tom Cole (R-OK-4), David Dreier (R-CA-26), Kay Granger (R-TX-12), Peter Hoekstra (R-MI-2), Duncan Hunter (R-CA-52), Peter King (R-NY-3), Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI-11), Adam Putnam (R-FL- 12), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-18), and Bill Young (R-FL-10) Summary: H.R. 511 pledges that “Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members of the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm’s way in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom [in Afghanistan].”
For the most current information and full text of resolutions and bills go to www.thomas.gov.
[TOP]
For Your Information
The Process for Passing Bills and Resolutions
Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, in both the Senate and House of Representatives, have introduced resolutions and bills on Iraq. The resolutions are non-binding and have no force of law. They simply express the “sense” of each house of Congress. The resolutions currently are also all limited to opposing escalation of the war by President George W. Bush, not the war itself.
In addition, a number of bills have been introduced. The bills, if passed, and signed by the president, do become law. Bush could also veto any given bill. To override a veto, Congress would need a two-thirds majority vote in favor, in both the House and Senate, for such a bill to become law.
For both resolutions and bills to reach the floor of the respective house where it was introduced, it usually must first go through the relevant committee, in this case commonly the foreign affairs, armed services or appropriations committees of either the House or Senate. Chairmanship of these committees plays a significant role in whether the measure comes up for a vote or not. Many bills die in committee and never reach the floor.
If the committee does consider it and a majority in favor is secured, it then goes to the leadership of the given house. The leadership generally determines whether and when a bill actually reaches the floor for debate and it can block debates and votes on resolutions or bills through a variety of procedural means, including by blocking them from even reaching the floor. The strength of the committee and its leadership also plays a role in forcing a bill to the floor. So while many bills have been submitted, it is likely only one or two will be debated on the floor of the House or Senate.
It is also the case that once a resolution or bill reaches the floor, procedural means can also be utilized to block it from coming up for a vote. Senators, in particular, can use a filibuster, meaning an individual member who has the floor refuses to cede it and does so by continuously talking. Stopping a filibuster requires a two-thirds vote. It is expected that the filibuster will be used in the upcoming fights on Iraq.
In addition, leadership of the two houses can organize together to rapidly bring bills to the floor for debate and a vote. Congress has passed repressive bills attacking the rights of the people within two weeks — including the Military Commissions Act and before that, the USA Patriot Act. The House acted quickly to bring its non-binding resolution to the floor for debate and a vote. This could readily be done with any of the current bills on Iraq. Despite overwhelming support from the people for immediate action, the bills opposing the Iraq war, which would carry the force of law, will not be handled in this manner. While they were submitted in January they are not even out of committee yet and some are not even yet scheduled for debate in their respective committee.
[TOP]
Was Iraq War a “Blunder” or Was It Treason?
New Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), is calling President Bush’s invasion of Iraq a “stark blunder” and says that his new scheme to send 21,500 more troops into the mess he created is just digging the hole deeper.
I wonder though.
It seems ever more likely to me that this whole mess was no blunder at all.
People are wont to attribute the whole thing to lack of intelligence on the president’s part, and to hubris on the part of his key advisers. I won’t argue that the president is a lightweight in the intellect department, nor will I dispute that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and that whole neocon gang have demonstrably lacked the virtues of reflection and humility. But that said, I suspect that the real story of the Iraq War is that Bush and his gang never really cared whether they actually would “win” in Iraq. In fact, arguably, they didn’t really want to win.
What they wanted was a war.
If the war they started had ended quickly with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein that would have served their purposes, at least for the short term. Bush would have emerged from a short invasion and conquest a national hero, would have handily won re-election in 2004, and would have gone on to a second term as a landslide victor. But if it went badly, as it has, they figured he would still come out ahead. He would be a wartime president, and he’d make full use of that role, expansively misdefining his “commander in chief” title to imply authority over the Congress and the courts, to grab power heretofore unheard of for a president.
This, I suspect, was the grand strategy underlying the attack on Iraq.
If I’m right, there may have been method to the madness of not building up enough troops for the invasion to insure that U.S. forces could occupy a destroyed Iraq and help it rebuild, method to the madness of allowing looters free sway to destroy the country’s remaining post-invasion infrastructure, method to the madness, even, of allowing remnant forces of Hussein’s to gather up stockpiles of weapons and even of high-density explosives, so they could mount an effective resistance and drag out the conflict.
So many apparently stupid decisions were made by people who should clearly have been too smart to make them, from leaving hundreds of tons of high explosives unguarded to cashiering all of Iraq’s army and most of the country’s civil service managers, that it boggles the mind to think that these could have been just dumb ideas or incompetence. (L. Paul Bremer, for instance, who made the “dumb” decision about dismantling the Iraqi army, prior to becoming Iraq’s occupation viceroy, had headed the nation’s leading risk assessment consultancy, and surely knew what all the risks were of his various decisions.)
I mean, we expect a measure of idiocy from our elected leaders and their appointees, but not wholesale idiocy!
This disaster has been so colossal, it almost had to have been orchestrated.
If that’s the case, Congress should be taking a hard look at not just the latest installment of escalation, but at the whole war project, beginning with the 2002 campaign to get it going. Certainly throwing 21,500 new troops into the fire makes no sense whatever. If 140,000 of the best-equipped troops in the world can’t pacify Iraq, 160,000 aren’t going to be able to do it either. You don’t need to be a general to figure that out. Even a senator or representative ought to be able to do it. So clearly Congress should kill this plan.
Since it’s not about “winning” the war, it has to be about something else. My guess would be it’s about either dragging things out until the end of 2008, so Bush can leave office without having to say he’s sorry. But of course, it could also be about something even more serious: invading Iran.
We know Bush is trying mightily to provoke Iran. He has illegally attacked an Iranian consulate in Iraq (an act of war), taking six protected consular officials there captive. He is sending a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf, and is setting up Patriot anti-missile missile bases along Iran’s western border. This buildup has all the earmarks of a pre-invasion. All that’s needed now is a pretext — a real or faked attack on an American ship, perhaps, ala the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” that launched America into the Vietnam War.
The way I see it, either way the president is committing treason, because he is sending American troops off to be killed for no good reason other than for aggrandizing power he shouldn¹t have, and/or simply covering his own political ass.
Treason is the number one impeachable crime under the Constitution, and we’re at a point where Congress is going to have to act or go down in history as having acquiesced in the worst presidential crime in the history of the nation.
Dave Lindorff is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office
[TOP]