Certificate of Ownership: 110th Congress Buys the War

Saturday 24 March 2007
Busy week here on the Hill, and I’m sure you know that the 110th Congress just bought the war in Iraq. On Monday, the 19th, the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Military Families Speak Out held a press conference on the steps of the Cannon House building. We unveiled the Certificate of Ownership, complete with warranty – the brainchild of MFSO member Tammara Rosenleaf, who stayed with me and is planning to return in April. (You can download the certificate at www.mfso.org)
Iraq War veterans also spoke, taking a break from Operation First Casualty, which had them in uniform “patrolling and occupying” the streets of D.C. and Capitol Hill (Photos are available at http://digitalgrace.livejournal.com/ ).

After the press conference, the veterans went deep into enemy territory i.e. the White House, and several dozen military family members and supporters went to Congresswoman Pelosi’s office to pepper the staff with questions, and make another seemingly futile request for a meeting with the Speaker. Military family members spent several hours canvassing Congressional offices with the Certificates, appealing to Representatives to stop the supplemental and end the war.

I was back on the Hill on Thursday for a Senate Armed Services committee meeting, followed by stops at several Senatorial offices. First was Sen. Akaka (D-Hawaii), to ask about my request for the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee to hold a human cost hearing. Bad timing, no one was around to help me, will call next week, and go back. Next stop: the Senate VA committee office in the Russell building. I cc’d them on the hearing request, and asked if there’d been any movement.

The snarky staffer kept saying that they’d never gotten my e-mail, knew nothing about my request, but I refused to leave and, after some pressing, they whipped out the hard copy of my letter. Then the man with the bad attitude metaphorically patted me on the head, saying, “We have hearings all the time, and get expert testimony.”

I reply, “You mean like the expert testimony General Pace provided at an Armed Services hearing in early February when he assured the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee that he was fully confident in the readiness and capabilities of the National Guard, particularly in the border states? And then, two weeks later, Lt. Gen. Blum of the National Guard reported that only 12 percent of Guard units were at readiness?” That kind of expert testimony?”

The man sneers, but remains silent.

“The only people who are experts at the realities and challenges and failure to care for veterans are the veterans themselves and the military families who love them. We need an open hearing.”

I repeated that to Jeff Bjornstad, chief of staff of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), who is a member of the Veterans Affairs committee. Jeff and I talked about a number of things, and I hope to have some progress to report in the next week or so.

Back to the vote. Our people spent much of the day Thursday making phone calls and in meetings with members of Congress, their staffers or aides. It wasn’t looking good, but we knew it was over when the Out of Iraq - whoops, scratch that - the Stay in Iraq Caucus released it’s members to vote ‘yes’ on continuing the funding for the war.

Friday morning some military families and veterans sat in the gallery during testimony and the vote; others stood at the crosswalk that members of congress use to get to the Capitol. I spoke with some of the Representatives on their way to the vote, including Jim McDermott (D-WA), who has been against this war from the start. During my conversation with the Seattle liberal, I caught something in his eyes – remorse? - and I knew he would join the ranks of the dozens of others who were choosing to break their promises to us, the American people, and most disappointingly, the troops.

Some examples: Rep. Wynn (D-Maryland) has made a public commitment to defunding the war. "Last month, Congressman Wynn signed onto the Declaration of Peace and publicly committed to defund the war, withdraw US troops, and support a sustained peace process and the reconstruction of Iraq. As part of this, he signed on to Jim McGovern's bill, HR 4232, End the War in Iraq Act, to use the Congressional power of the purse to get our troops out of Iraq starting now."(from Wynn's website) Until recently, Wynn was the only member of the Maryland delegation who said he would not vote for continued funding of this war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.

Even more unbelievable is Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), who introduced HR 4232, and has spent years publicly proclaiming his opposition to the war. Yesterday, he voted for the war.
The bill's timeline call for troops to return at the end of 2008, unless they are engaged in training Iraq forces or killing or capturing terrorists. In effect, there’s no real timeline at all. According to Liz Frederick, (MFSO), it's "another year and a half where we will see an average of three soldiers dying every day. The bill does place restrictions on the president, and includes a loop hole that lets the president send the troops to Iraq, ill-equipped, ill-trained, and without proper rest, as long as he tells Congress in writing why it's in the interest of national security to do so."

Earlier this year, Congressman Markey (D-MA) signed a pledge to vote against the $100 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq coming before Congress. Representative Markey has stated he would vote against all supplemental funding. Yesterday, he voted for the war.
Who else failed miserably in the integrity department and bought the war yesterday, after getting elected largely because of their opposition to funding it?

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), whose campaign website states:
The United States must physically leave, abandon our "lone wolf" approach, and work with other nations to stabilize Iraq. Americans have spent billions on this unnecessary war only to see tragedy, fraud, and waste.
I guess Carol thought we should spend another 100 billion more, so that America could add to the tragedy, fraud, and waste while
Keith Ellison (D-MN) who ran on an anti-war ticket, and posted this on his website:
I am calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the war before it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the only candidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops.
Now that Keith’s not a candidate, his true colors come out, and he’s decided that rather than supporting the troops, he supports some sort of withdrawal at some point in the distant future – or not.

Campaign’s over, folks, back to business as usual.

Other disappointments include: Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), another outspoken war critic,
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), et. al.

Of the 14 Dem’s who did NOT vote to fund the war, New York Congressman McNulty’s website statement is particularly noteworthy:
In the spring of 1970, during my first term as Town Supervisor of Green Island, I testified against the War in Vietnam at a Congressional Field Hearing in Schenectady, New York.
Several months after that testimony, my brother, HM3 William F. McNulty, a Navy Medic, was killed in Quang Nam Province.

I have thought -- many times since then -- that if President Nixon had listened to the voices of reason back then, my brother Bill might still be alive.
As a Member of Congress today, I believe that the Iraq War will eventually be recorded as one of the biggest blunders in the history of warfare.
In October of 2002, I made a huge mistake in voting to give this President the authority to take military action in Iraq. I will not compound that error by voting to authorize this war's continuation.

On the contrary, I will do all that is within my power to end this war, to bring our troops home, and to spare other families the pain that the McNulty family has endured every day since August 9th, 1970.

Yesterday, every member of Congress that voted to fund the war bought – at minimum – another year and a half of pain, sacrifice, and suffering, which will be paid for by thousands of American troops and military families, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Oh what bullshit.

You want all the troops miracled home right this minute, which is the majority opinion in Kucinich Cloud-Coocoo Land, and nowhere else.

The war can't be stopped on a dime. An orderly and safe withdrawal would take time. If Bush changed his policy to "withdraw starting now," we're still there for a year at least.

And a majority of the American people is against cutting off funding. They are against the war but they don't like the idea of a funding cutoff. Sorry if they're not pure enough for you.

Gaurentees...

Blah, blah, blah...

You can not guarantee to all Americans that our soldiers will not be killed in the next 18 months nor can you guarantee that they will begin to come home then, ANY MORE SO than the Republicans can guarantee that the "terrorists" will follow our troops home when they finally do come home, whenever that may be.

At this point, IF the Senate pases this bill in it's current form, the president will do one of two things...

~1/. He will veto it based on either the time line, the pork , or both. At which point Pelosi will end up compromising what? The time line? Or the Pork?
~2/. He will sign it and attach a signing statement to the effect that states, "The President of the USA as acting in his powers of the CIC under the war clause will determine the degree of the timetable applicable based on changing events on the ground as reported by the Commanders on the Ground."... A-La 'Stay the Course'

Most people in this country are sheeple... They feed off what is feed to them. They believe that cutting off the funding will be detrimental to the troops. However the budget, as is, carries enough to cover their expense for withdrawal. If the president wishes to carry on further with his war, he then would have to appeal to Congress to raise funds for his endeavor. Thus, we might, just might see a war tax. Imagine IF the Richie Riches had to help fund this war, directly.

Too bad Pelosi squashed the Lee/Wolsey Amendment. It could have been a good tool for her to leverage the voters and the Republicans with. I always say, aim high and you'll get close to what you desire, aim low and you'll end up settling for less. Did Pelosi aim as high as she could have? Where is her begaining room? The timeline could have been her counter offer, NO? "Well, Mr President, if you don't want them out now then you're gonna have to settle on a time line then."

But no, support the troops is all the rage now, NO? What with Walter Reed and head trauma and rats and mold... Silly me, the Pentagon's budget covers those things, and the V.A. Generals are to blame for the poor facilities and their NOT(!) reporting of it.

I tell ya what support the troops looks like...

Recognizing that the fight they are engaged in is one based on lies, contrived and faulty reasoning, knowing that each day the troops spend in Iraq is another day that the odds are against their safe return. Knowing that the troops are in the bullseye in a country where killing American troops is considered acceptable because of the hardship this occupation has brought to the locals who see the troops as their sole reference to an illegal war.

Supporting the troops is NOT(!) about keeping them in harms way for as long as possible just so that the politicians can try to look good to their voters. The troops ARE people too, NO?

HOW MANY MORE...
WILL DIE IN THIS WAR?

Average 3 a day x 540 days = another 1600 (average)

Do them a favor and let them know this. K?

Withdrawal easily doable in 6 months

According to Scott Ritter -- someone who does, in fact, know what he's talking about -- we can withdraw the troops easily in 6 months. See him in an interview here: http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070320_scott_ritter_robert_sche...

Six months is enough time and we could fund that for far less than they're asking for. And we could begin tomorrow. That's what most Americans actually want.

Invite Pelosi

Could be Pelosi is trying to be the first woman invited to the bohemian club. Shes got a good start
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1358319439993514946

Meanwhile, The UN Votes To Impose New Sanctions On Iran . .

Meanwhile, the the UN votes to impose new sanctions on Iran . .

(clipped headline)
"U.N. Security Council takes action against Iran - 15-member body unanimously OKs new sanctions over uranium enrichment"

(full developing story)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17773909/

Of course, the good ol' USA effectively blocked Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from being able to address the UN on behalf of his country.

(clipped article)
"UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has canceled a planned visit to the United Nations, and Tehran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, on Friday blamed a delay in U.S. visas being issued to the crew of his airplane."

(full story)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/23/iran.nuclear/

Fairgame, kidz?

"Voices in the corridors of power
Candles burning hour by hour
Still you know that to the victors go the spoils
Such a great responsibility to make it fair
And there must be some reparations now
And don't forget the oil"
- League of Notions by Al Stewart

peace.

The Reason ...

why the 110th Congress decided in their infinite (lack of) wisdom to buy the IraqNam War was because of several factors which came into play.

First ... we have reports that Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a page from Dick Cheney's playbook and threatened several Democratic Congressmen with loss of committees and pet projects for their districts if they didn't vote "yes" on the funding bill. Yep... her antics prove that vicious opportunism is no respecter of gender or party.

Keep in mind that Speaker Pelosi's husband is a close personal friend of those sterling war profiteers, George Shultz and Felix Rohatyn, and she's not about to alienate two of the deep-pocketed financiers of many Democratic election campaigns... and then there's also the ever-looming shadow of AIPAC/PNAC, which can make or break political campaigns and candidates with shocking ease.

Secondly ... this turnaround by many so-called "anti-war" Congresspeople is a prime example of how the all-too-pervasive, clinically insane "victory culture" works. All Speaker Pelosi had to do was appeal to the deep-seated insecurities, fears and paranoia among the Democratic Congresspeople to get what she wanted.

What does a Democratic (or Republican) politician fear most? Losing the next election, of course. They also fear not having enough money to run their campaign, and they're also afraid of losing the perks, prestige and power they've cultivated. So, they're going to do everything in their power to "go with the flow" (even when "going with the flow" will bring great harm to the nation) in order to insure that they get re-elected, and they'll have sufficient campaign funding to beat out any possible opponents.

Fear, intimidation, and the loss of perks, prestige and power were skilfully used by Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic chickenhawks who fully support the war to bring most, but not all, of the Democratic Congresspeople in line with the agenda which has been set by the DNC, DLC, AIPAC and PNAC.

So now, the Congress -- through continued funding of the war -- has bought another year and a half of pain, suffering and sacrifice, but it won't cost them anything. The ones who will bear the full costs will be American troops and military families, and the Iraqi people, whom the Congress and their corporate war profiteering campaign contributors consider to be less than human.

It also relieves Congress of the odious and inconvienient duty of impeaching Cheney and G.W. by allowing the electoral clock to run on their time in office. A double impeachment is something they don't want to do anyway, because it would eat up their precious campaigning time.

Do you have documentation of Pelosi/Rohaty/Schulz connectio

Just curious StephieL. Am doing some research myself.

A Good Place To Start...

is with Speaker Pelosi's own website, where you'll find her bio (among other things), then get thyself to Google, and type in the names "Felix Rohatyn", "George Shultz" and "George Soros".

The results you get will be quite enlightening.

Happy Searching! :-)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.