Based on my research on my last article, I now conclude that Pelosi and Reid are part of the problem, that they will not stop the war if we keep doing what we're doing.
Let me repeat that. Reid and Pelosi are part of the problem, keeping the war going. If they wanted to, they could push for support so they could go to the president and inform him that they would not bring any more bills fo funding to the house or senate floor. Either one of them could do it and it would take a majority in the house and 60 votes in the senate to over-ride.
But they're not willing to do that. If they were, they would have done it.
I believe we need to get commitments from every legislator, whether they will support a blocking of funds. If enough commit, then further steps can be taken to push Pelosi and Reid to take a stand.
The problem is, blocking funds by not introducing legislation is a process that does not have a usual procedure in congress. Congress is all about passing legislation. Legislation starts in committees. The legislative process gets legislators to sign on. In this case, anti-legislation somehow must be supported, with supporters signing on and being quantified that they commit to NOT sign on to a bill and not pass legislation.
The good thing is that not voting carries a bit of anonymity with it, that legislators can hide behind. That anonymity can be erased when the media spotlight is focused, but, gearing up for an intentional, "non-vote" on funding legislation will probably require a serious, organized, coordinated effort which will put participating legislators in the spotlight.
Forty one senators willing to refuse to vote are needed in the senate and about 220 are needed in the house.
We need to start asking our legislators to take a stand-- to actually commit to no longer voting to fund the military-- which is the one certain power the congress has-- the power of the purse-- to control decisions related to war. If enough legislators get on the bandwagon, then Pelosi and Reid will have to listen and maybe, just maybe, they'll finally do what they have failed to do-- listen to and obey the will of the voters.
Two or three of the Dem candidates running for congress may be good candidates for getting on the bandwagon early. It's a way to put them on the spot. Ask them. "Do you want to end the war, or not? Then will you refuse to vote for further funds?"
I'd guess Hillary and Obama will waffle. Dodd might go for it. Kucinich has already committed to it. Biden will talk endlessly about it. Bottom line-- any candidate who doesn't agree to tap the power of congress to end the war doesn't deserve the candidacy.
Of course, this article suggests that the Democrats actually want to go against the apparent wishes of their leaders. That may not be the case. There will be many, many democrats who refuse to take a stand. David Swanson's website has a page where, close to 100 Dems had committed to not support further funding. But some of them have already voted affirmatively on interim bills.
But there may be some legislators who go beyond be unwilling to commit. Some may actually say they will keep on funding the war. At least some of them are worthy of targetting in the primaries, for replacement.
Article Comments Update: It looks like Tom Murphy hijacked the thread with his nonsence about a small minority wanting the war to end.
I'd like to see the discussion be about turning the members of congress to sign on to refusing not to further fund the war. So do me a favor. Ignore the thread hijacker and address what the article is about.
Another addendum. I'd asked Thom Hartmann to comment on his idea of what it would like like, after the dems tell Bush NO MORE when he asks for money to fund the war. Here's Thom's reply:
The day after Congress refuses to fund any more of the occupation of Iraq, American will be on the road to becoming America again. FDR said that we don't covet the property of any other nation; JFK said that "America will never start a war." Republicans in the past 5 years have done both, and it's fundamentally treasonous to the ideals of this nation. When Congress finally says "No" to the third George to be President of the US, we'll be taking a step not unlike that taken by the Founders when they said "No" to the third George to be a King of England.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
And you know what? I've unilaterally decided to stop funding my kids' education by withholding my property tax. That'll show Kathy that the school administration's decisions are whacked! More importantly, I'll sleep well at night knowing that little Kathy was nothing more than a pawn in my political game of chess with an "obvious" cheater that only made whacked decisions.
I'm so glad that the issue really IS that simple! Penalize the student for the administrators' decisions. Call ME whacked, but... why not go after the school administrators in this example and let Kathy continue her classes?
If you disagree with the administrators' decisions, then attend the school board meetings, listen to the comments, opine on what you've heard, participate and communicate your position, vote for members that espouse views similar to yours, etc... But throughout this process, EXPECT and ACCEPT that you are only one of many and that other opinions exist, as well, and that they may differ from yours. Indeed, others' opinions may actually agree with the school administrators' decisions.
With this in mind, read what the very-wise Mark Twain once wrote, "But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?" Never better said.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1494 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 10:54:46 AM
they were elected by our legislators. If our legislators don't keep them in line and get them to do their work, then our legislators are also responsible. This teacher administrator analogy doesn't work. Teachers don't elect administrators.
by
Rob Kall (747 articles, 3833 quicklinks, 320 diaries, 1610 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 11:20:59 AM
The slim Democratic majority was earned precisely because they campaigned on ending this horrid little war.
We are in Iraq solely because Bush lied through his teeth repeatedly and the then Republican majority was nothing more or less than a rubber stamp for his wishes. I am simply flabbergasted that this poster can make such a weak analogy in defense of a war that never should have been.
Congress supposedly serves the wishes of the American public, and over 70% of us want our troops out of Iraq. If we followed Tom we would still be in Viet Nam.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 1:14:35 PM
I am pleased to see that you believe Dodd might go for it.
This is what he has said about Iraq (I just looked it up.A copy of the speech is on his Website) “ That is why, tonight, I am calling on all the Democratic candidates in this race to join me in clearly standing up to the President once and for all by stating their support for the Feingold-Reid legislation that sets a firm timetable to end this war by March 31st, 2008. Dodd has just very recently became my choice for candidate for president. I was looking for a leader, someone who stands on principle rather than on political expediency. I first read that he put a hold on the FISA bill that calls for retroactive immunity for the telecoms. So I searched for other information on his policies and actions. Chris Dodd has become the first Democrat to say he's voting against Mukasey for AG. His reason. "Mr. Mukasey's position that the President does not have to heed the law disqualifies him from being the chief attorney for the United States.” Dodd is an experienced person who has been on the Senate foreign relations committee for 25 years. Most important of all, he says his first action after being sworn in as president will be to restore the Constitution.
by
Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 149 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 11:20:40 AM
I like what Dodd is doing. It's about time. But is it for show to get a boost in the polls? Is he yanking the chains of Obama and Clinton making them look like fools and forcing them to take positions they would never take as president? And why do we give him more props for doing the right thing when that is what Kucinich (also a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate) has been doing all along? After all, who has the authored the legislation for impeachment and will be forcing debate on it before Thanksgiving? Who has deemed the desired immunity for telecommunications "a text book" case of "fascism"? kWho was one of the only three House Democrats to vote against the "Thought Crime Prevention" Bill or what is officially known as the Violen Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act? Who has been right on Iraq since 2002 and is the only man right on Iran right now?
I am admiring Chris Dodd more and more each day. But he hasn't gotten me to shift my vote. Dennis is too good to abandon.
by
Kevin Gosztola (187 articles, 96 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 771 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 5:44:43 PM
If we all vote for him. Seriously, we need to just make a decision to ignore mass media, the debates, election rallies, polls, etc. and just vote now what we know is right.
Look the poor, working poor, black, Latino, lower middle class, middle class, students, etc. outnumber the upper middle class, upper class, top 1%, etc. If we all just vote our conscience, Dennis wins. Obama and Clinton lose. So, you know what? Let's get out and register people in our communities to vote on one day and hand out flyers the next.
Let's practice democracy and have fun.
by
Kevin Gosztola (187 articles, 96 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 771 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 7:28:20 PM
It's true that the teachers don't elect the administrators.
If not the teachers, then who elects the school administrators (i.e., school board)? We the parents do - at least in New England we do.
If not Pelosi and Reid, then who elects the legislators (i.e., Congress)? We the people do - at least in the United States we do.
Therefore, how are you voicing your opinion constructively (i.e., consensus based upon the needs of the many) to the school administrators (i.e., legislators) when you advocate only the removal of funding for student (i.e., military) activities that only impact adversely (i.e., hurt) the students' (i.e., military's) chances for success because you disgaree with the school administrators' (i.e., legislators') decision to not follow your opinion (i.e., singular based upon the needs of a few)?
The only one's that get hurt (i.e., dimished potential for succes) here are the students (i.e., military) because of the passionate needs (i.e., Bush lied, the war is illegal, America must withdraw) of a few.
The analogy appears to be valid.
This is Rob Kall's response, in the indented box. (a perk for the publisher.)
I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. Frankly, I thought you were suggesting it was unfair to the teachers or students because they couldn'tvote. But your comments about a small minority... why that shows you are out of touch with reality... or listening to or watching right wing propaganda.
Rob kall
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1494 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 12:43:32 PM
Sorry to ask you to further explain, but I thought the majority of American citizens are currently classified as being 'against the war' or even 'anti-war' with a growing number of servicemen and women expressing the same view...
Or did I just totally misunderstand your statement?
If I'm not mistaken, the view you're expousing seems quite identical to the attacks I would expect anyone refusing to further fund the war would face from Republicans and our President -in an effort to question their patriotism and overall support for our military when it's the 'mission' and 'noble cause' that need to be focussed on... which, clearly, were undertaken for hidden motives and not the BS the mainstream media cheerled us to war with. Kucinich's plan sounded extremely sane. What IS wrong with bringing troops home or redeploying them to other not-so-fatal posts??? A president who would keep them in harms way after funding has been cut off would be the one who would be further hurting the military -not those attempting to stop the war from continuing...
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 634 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 1:09:30 PM
A few, a few? Tom, are you bereft of your senses. Do you not learn from history as well? This war is unwinnable without turning Iraq into a nuclear wasteland, as was the USSR's efforts in Afghanistan, as were our own in Viet Nam. This nation is a democratic republic and the wishes of a majority are very clear in this matter, at least clear to all but you apparently.
The real way to support our military is to be careful to give them missions they can actually accomplish and with sufficient equipment and in sufficient numbers to do the damn job. The real lack of support for our troops comes from those who sent them into Iraq in the first place, oh and those who are unwilling to bring them home.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 1:20:17 PM
Let's boil this down to your core assertions. You're saying
that only a "few" are opposed to the Iraq War, & that it's not "constructive" to discuss antiwar strategies, because it "hurts" the military's "chances for success."
Actually, MOST Americans oppose the Iraq war, despite constant exposure to dishonest pro-war propaganda from media & government.
Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that the military's "chances for success" is automatically something to be ardently wished for, in itself. It isn't. The primary question is whether the war is just -- not simply whether the military is involved in it. If the war is unjust, as this one is, the military shouldn't be in it at all, and there's no reason to wish for their "success" in it. The thing to be hoped for, rather, is that they are pulled out of it.
The proper way to "support the troops" would be to bring them home, and not force them to fight an immoral war.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1104 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 1:40:02 PM
The success of killing 1,000,000 Iraqis and causing 2,000,000 refugees, and the Typhoid and Cholera outbreaks and the destruction of the infrastructure and electricity and water purifaction plants which is causing the dirtywater diseases?
And the malformed births from Depleted Uranium dust and the cancers and lukemia and, and, you have the gall to call this success? Give me a break!
by
ibrahim turner (25 articles, 24 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 168 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 2:14:48 PM
Large number of troops are against the war they are in
The Army times and others have polled the troops and over 50% of the troops don't think we should be there. The war is a WAR CRIME by US and International Law.
by
tginmn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 7:04:35 PM
Although I am distrustful of polls because of the wording structures used in the questions, I know some here live and die by them. Very well, this question is from a recent (09-27-30/07) CBS News poll:
Q: "The Bush Administration has requested nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars and related U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year. This is about 40 billion dollars more than first estimated. Do you think Congress should approve all of this funding request, or reduce it?"
A: Approve All - 27% Reduce It - 67% Shouldn't Approve Any Money - 3% Unsure - 3%
Using Kall's solution of, "It's a way to put them on the spot. Ask them. 'Do you want to end the war, or not? Then will you refuse to vote for further funds?'", the legislators' responses should be clear from the results of the poll – NO. A total of 94% of the polled Americans believe that some form of funding should continue. How's that for subliminal spin?
And the last time I checked, 3% was a few; correct me, though, if I'm wrong on this one – please!
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1494 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 1:44:39 PM
However, had the choice been given of 'End the war and bring the troops home' instead of 'No money should be approved' -I think the result would have been different -granted, though, they basically mean the same thing. Not everyone can see that... and you'll have plenty that buy into Bush's crapola that defunding would be hurting the troops because he'd be forced to withdraw them or leave them there unfunded (and he very much wants them there). I imagine these are the same people that associated Iraq with 9/11 because they were mentioned constantly in the same sentence everytime Bushie and Co. opened their mouths...
Could you point to any recent polls that say a majority would LIKE the war to continue?
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 634 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 1:56:03 PM
You very dishonestly left out most of the meaningful stats
on that same web page. For example:
The most recent CBS poll said 67% of all adults disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. 51% say US should have stayed out of Iraq altogether. 63% say the war is going "somewhat badly" or "very badly." Only 15% were "willing" to have large numbers of troops in Iraq for more than 2 years. Only 33% thought the "surge" had any benefit.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1104 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 2:36:20 PM
No, I cannot point, "...to any recent polls that say a majority would LIKE the war to continue."
However, I was not posting in regard to that issue, although other posters here wanted to argue that point and link my comments to the same. While wording is key, the context of a post is better at understanding the commenter's assertion rather than relying on assumptions.
Context is a wonderful construct that's often sacrifced on the alter of immediacy - an original.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1494 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 2:23:00 PM
but (as R. Emanuel even said) the war IS thought to be good for the Dems -and the phony leadership they've been providing is only concerned with political gains during the next election cylces... they could care less for the actual soldiers and (as we've discussed before) see them as pawns in their political games...
I don't think it has much to do with the will of the people anymore...
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 634 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 3:02:17 PM
"You very dishonestly left out most of the meaningful stats"
Richard, please show "how" my comments demonstrate that I was being very dishonest with respect to Kall's article and my comments to the same - A majority of Americans want to fund the troops, while "a few" Americans want to cut off all funding to end the war. I'm curious at the logic that's being used here to conclude dishonesty on my part - honestly ;)
I think any rational person can only conclude that you "very dishonestly" are associating my comments to a point I never argued here within the posts - a majority of Americans don't support the war. I agree a majority of Americans do not support the war.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1494 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 3:21:32 PM
Sure, no problem. In your post above, you cited ONLY
the one statistic in that polling report which seemingly supported your position. And you omitted ALL the other stats -- all of which tended to undermine your position.
That's a very selective & deceptive way to present evidence.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1104 comments)
on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 4:46:47 PM
I feel almost sorry for someone defending the indefensible. I picture him as a neocon dinosaur, already extinct yet plodding onward, slowly losing everything necesary to continue to exist.
But on the bright side, after the naked display of incompetence and overwhelming greed displayed by his ilk upon the Supreme Court giving them ascendancy, one can see the American public awakening and the dawning of a better day....Why else this silly manipulation of statistics?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 8:54:47 AM
