Strongest House Vote Yet On Afghan Amendment
0 views
Skip to first unread message
CodeManBob
May 27, 2011, 12:37:03 PM5/27/11
to NMRA
This, forwarded by Dan, from TheNation.com
Update, 2:11 PM, THURSDAY MAY 26: The House turned down the McGovern
amendment on a close partisan vote this afternoon, 204-215. While 178
Democrats supported the measure, only twenty-six Republicans joined
them, erasing any possibility of a bipartisan consensus to leave
Afghanistan. The vote, however, is the strongest yet for McGovern’s
initiative and sends a united Democratic message to the president.
Update, 5:18 PM: Fourteen House Democrats voted no or not-voting on
the McGovern amendment favoring an accelerated Afghanistan withdrawal
today, enough to prevent its passage in a hectic day of Congressional
maneuvering. Three of those not voting were strong antiwar liberals,
Jesse Jackson Jr., Bob Filner and Donald Payne. One of the members,
Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was unable to vote. The final vote
was 204-215-6.
With 217 votes, it might have been possible to recruit one more
Republican vote, thus making the measure the first official
Congressional opposition in the history of the decade-long war. The
measure then would have faced the Senate Democratic majority with a
challenge to go along with their House colleagues in sending the
proposal to the president for approval.
The eight Democrats who voted no: Jason Altmire, John Barrow, Dan
Boren, Joe Donnelly, Larry Kissill, Jim Matheson, Mike Ross (Ark.),
Dutch Ruppersberger.
The close vote either represents an absolute House division or an
example of sending a message with a tacit understanding that the
measure would not take on official momentum.
In worse news, the House majority voted to expand the current
authorization of the war on terrorism beyond Al Qaeda to any potential
terrorist threat. The expanded mission is opposed by President Obama
and faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
In somewhat better news, an amendment by Rep. John Conyers banning
US ground troops in Libya passed 417-4-11. A Barbara Lee measure
prohibiting expenditures on permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan
passed on a voice vote.
* * *
By Tom Hayden in The Nation Magazine:
The Republican-controlled House will vote today on a measure by Jim
McGovern encouraging the Obama administration to accelerate a
timetable for troop withdrawals and an exit plan from Afghanistan.
On the surface, the proposal says little of substance. But a drama
is unfolding in the shadows of American politics. If the measure
receives a majority, or significant support from Democrats and
Republicans, it may provide political cover for a significant troop
withdrawal beginning in July. McGovern says that if his measure “gets
a decent vote, it provides some wind at [Obama’s] back. Then, come
July, he can do more than a token withdrawal.”
The politics at stake were foreshadowed in 2009, as described in
Bob Woodward’s eye-opening book Obama’s Wars.
Since the book was published, hawkish Republicans have taken over
the House, spoiling whatever earlier strategy may have existed among
Democrats. But the effort to call for a timeline “from the Hill” is
moving ahead.
That may explain why the amendment itself is so empty of substance,
making an affirmative vote easier to cast for politicians worried
about rising antiwar sentiment in their districts. The measure calls
for setting a withdrawal timeline without including any proposal. In
fact, the president already has set a withdrawal deadline for combat
troops in 2014, dependent on conditions on the ground. The McGovern
bill doesn’t explicitly challenge that date, though it does support an
“accelerated” withdrawal. The amendment also calls for reports to
Congress on a diplomatic exit strategy, a step forward that reflects
the reality that the United States already is stepping up efforts at
peace talks with the Taliban.
McGovern is a savvy and passionate opponent of the Afghanistan war,
so one might ask why he is promoting a measure so free of content.
Since it’s not a matter of incompetence, the only explanation is that
he simply wants to maximize the House in favor of a rhetorical
blueprint. Before Obama set his 2014 timeline, earlier votes on
similar McGovern measures garnered 138 House votes in 2009 and 162
last year. By stripping the concept of concrete substance, it is
possible McGovern will gain enough conservative Republican and
Democratic votes to approach the magic majority number of 218.
This may be a brilliant Machiavellian tactic. But it leaves serious
questions. First, a far stronger measure by Representative Barbara Lee
was disallowed by the House Rules Committee from reaching a floor
vote. Lee’s measure would cut war funding only to the level necessary
to pay for the withdrawal of US troops. About 112 House members have
been prepared to vote for the Lee measure, considered a measure of
“hard” antiwar numbers. But this year, the House Rules Committee, of
which McGovern is a member, in effect threw the Lee amendment under
the bus. Lee was allowed instead a vote on a measure banning permanent
military bases.
If sufficient Republican members support the McGovern measure, it
only sets the table for an Obama decision in July that could yet
disappoint activists and peace voters—not to mention the official
Democratic National Committee—who are demanding rapid, significant and
substantial withdrawals beginning this July. If Obama follows his
centrist political philosophy, he could announce a planned withdrawal
of some 33,000 troops beginning in July. The number may seem
significant, but it would leave the president in two years with the
same number of American troops as when he took office in January 2009,
minus the surge he authorized for the past two years. That would be
more than the 10,000-15,000 troops the Pentagon says it could afford
to withdraw, but only half the numbers that moderate antiwar think
tanks like the Afghanistan Study Group and the Center for American
Progress are advocating. As for the rank-and-file peace movement
demand for all troops out by 2012, that is off the table, even though
the senior centrist of the US Senate, Max Baucus, just called this
week for the complete removal of combat troops by the end of 2012.
In other words, McGovern’s amendment could provide some bipartisan
cover for Obama to announce any troop reduction he wishes to, any exit
strategy he wishes to, and take it to the voters in 2012. It could be
up to the Republicans whether to join Obama removing the war from the
2012 election debate by creating a bipartisan image of peace.
When the draft was in effect during Viet Nam, thousands took to the
streets to protest, especially after we learned that Johnson lied to
take us to war. An all volunteer military eliminates the incentive for
massive dissent. Now recruiters hook kids with promises of a better
wage than they would have made working at civilian job—then take the
chance they will not see action. The TV stories of troops receiving
rehab are disingenuous. Most returning troops cannot get jobs, have
been foreclosed, return as different men than when they left, families
split, etc. We never should have been in Iraq. Bush had bin Laden
cornered and let him escape. We could have taken him and the whole of
al queda out and come home.
Update, 2:11 PM, THURSDAY MAY 26: The House turned down the McGovern
amendment on a close partisan vote this afternoon, 204-215. While 178
Democrats supported the measure, only twenty-six Republicans joined
them, erasing any possibility of a bipartisan consensus to leave
Afghanistan. The vote, however, is the strongest yet for McGovern’s
initiative and sends a united Democratic message to the president.
Update, 5:18 PM: Fourteen House Democrats voted no or not-voting on
the McGovern amendment favoring an accelerated Afghanistan withdrawal
today, enough to prevent its passage in a hectic day of Congressional
maneuvering. Three of those not voting were strong antiwar liberals,
Jesse Jackson Jr., Bob Filner and Donald Payne. One of the members,
Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was unable to vote. The final vote
was 204-215-6.
With 217 votes, it might have been possible to recruit one more
Republican vote, thus making the measure the first official
Congressional opposition in the history of the decade-long war. The
measure then would have faced the Senate Democratic majority with a
challenge to go along with their House colleagues in sending the
proposal to the president for approval.
The eight Democrats who voted no: Jason Altmire, John Barrow, Dan
Boren, Joe Donnelly, Larry Kissill, Jim Matheson, Mike Ross (Ark.),
Dutch Ruppersberger.
The close vote either represents an absolute House division or an
example of sending a message with a tacit understanding that the
measure would not take on official momentum.
In worse news, the House majority voted to expand the current
authorization of the war on terrorism beyond Al Qaeda to any potential
terrorist threat. The expanded mission is opposed by President Obama
and faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
In somewhat better news, an amendment by Rep. John Conyers banning
US ground troops in Libya passed 417-4-11. A Barbara Lee measure
prohibiting expenditures on permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan
passed on a voice vote.
* * *
By Tom Hayden in The Nation Magazine:
The Republican-controlled House will vote today on a measure by Jim
McGovern encouraging the Obama administration to accelerate a
timetable for troop withdrawals and an exit plan from Afghanistan.
On the surface, the proposal says little of substance. But a drama
is unfolding in the shadows of American politics. If the measure
receives a majority, or significant support from Democrats and
Republicans, it may provide political cover for a significant troop
withdrawal beginning in July. McGovern says that if his measure “gets
a decent vote, it provides some wind at [Obama’s] back. Then, come
July, he can do more than a token withdrawal.”
The politics at stake were foreshadowed in 2009, as described in
Bob Woodward’s eye-opening book Obama’s Wars.
Since the book was published, hawkish Republicans have taken over
the House, spoiling whatever earlier strategy may have existed among
Democrats. But the effort to call for a timeline “from the Hill” is
moving ahead.
That may explain why the amendment itself is so empty of substance,
making an affirmative vote easier to cast for politicians worried
about rising antiwar sentiment in their districts. The measure calls
for setting a withdrawal timeline without including any proposal. In
fact, the president already has set a withdrawal deadline for combat
troops in 2014, dependent on conditions on the ground. The McGovern
bill doesn’t explicitly challenge that date, though it does support an
“accelerated” withdrawal. The amendment also calls for reports to
Congress on a diplomatic exit strategy, a step forward that reflects
the reality that the United States already is stepping up efforts at
peace talks with the Taliban.
McGovern is a savvy and passionate opponent of the Afghanistan war,
so one might ask why he is promoting a measure so free of content.
Since it’s not a matter of incompetence, the only explanation is that
he simply wants to maximize the House in favor of a rhetorical
blueprint. Before Obama set his 2014 timeline, earlier votes on
similar McGovern measures garnered 138 House votes in 2009 and 162
last year. By stripping the concept of concrete substance, it is
possible McGovern will gain enough conservative Republican and
Democratic votes to approach the magic majority number of 218.
This may be a brilliant Machiavellian tactic. But it leaves serious
questions. First, a far stronger measure by Representative Barbara Lee
was disallowed by the House Rules Committee from reaching a floor
vote. Lee’s measure would cut war funding only to the level necessary
to pay for the withdrawal of US troops. About 112 House members have
been prepared to vote for the Lee measure, considered a measure of
“hard” antiwar numbers. But this year, the House Rules Committee, of
which McGovern is a member, in effect threw the Lee amendment under
the bus. Lee was allowed instead a vote on a measure banning permanent
military bases.
If sufficient Republican members support the McGovern measure, it
only sets the table for an Obama decision in July that could yet
disappoint activists and peace voters—not to mention the official
Democratic National Committee—who are demanding rapid, significant and
substantial withdrawals beginning this July. If Obama follows his
centrist political philosophy, he could announce a planned withdrawal
of some 33,000 troops beginning in July. The number may seem
significant, but it would leave the president in two years with the
same number of American troops as when he took office in January 2009,
minus the surge he authorized for the past two years. That would be
more than the 10,000-15,000 troops the Pentagon says it could afford
to withdraw, but only half the numbers that moderate antiwar think
tanks like the Afghanistan Study Group and the Center for American
Progress are advocating. As for the rank-and-file peace movement
demand for all troops out by 2012, that is off the table, even though
the senior centrist of the US Senate, Max Baucus, just called this
week for the complete removal of combat troops by the end of 2012.
In other words, McGovern’s amendment could provide some bipartisan
cover for Obama to announce any troop reduction he wishes to, any exit
strategy he wishes to, and take it to the voters in 2012. It could be
up to the Republicans whether to join Obama removing the war from the
2012 election debate by creating a bipartisan image of peace.
When the draft was in effect during Viet Nam, thousands took to the
streets to protest, especially after we learned that Johnson lied to
take us to war. An all volunteer military eliminates the incentive for
massive dissent. Now recruiters hook kids with promises of a better
wage than they would have made working at civilian job—then take the
chance they will not see action. The TV stories of troops receiving
rehab are disingenuous. Most returning troops cannot get jobs, have
been foreclosed, return as different men than when they left, families
split, etc. We never should have been in Iraq. Bush had bin Laden
cornered and let him escape. We could have taken him and the whole of
al queda out and come home.
Douglas Conwell
May 27, 2011, 2:08:04 PM5/27/11
to nm...@googlegroups.com
Hi bob,
Did you see through MoveOn that 10 people are meeting with Udall about ending Afghanistan war?
Doug
For journeys on the land and with traditional cultures of the Southwest and Mexico, visit
EarthWalks at: http://earthwalks.org/ "There is enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed."---Ghandi "If you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need."---Rolling Stones
--- On Fri, 5/27/11, CodeManBob <robert....@att.net> wrote:
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "NMRA" group.
> To post to this group, send email to nm...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nmra+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nmra?hl=en.
>
>
robert....@att.net
May 27, 2011, 4:51:35 PM5/27/11
to nm...@googlegroups.com
Yes, Doug, I got that from MoveOn and immediately tried to RSVP but was told the roster had been filled already. That was fast. Maybe we can find out who is going and tap them for NMRA membership. I'll also ask for a report from MoveOn on the results. Bob
From: Douglas Conwell <earth...@yahoo.com>
To: nm...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 27, 2011 1:08:04 PM
Subject: Re: [NMRA] Strongest House Vote Yet On Afghan Amendment
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nmra+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nmra?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NMRA" group.
To post to this group, send email to nm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nmra+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
redykilowattus
May 27, 2011, 6:09:07 PM5/27/11
to NMRA
I was out of town until last night, saw this this afternoon from CREDO
action, must be the same meeting as MoveOn's.
Mark
Meeting in Santa Fe: Ask Sen. Udall to support a timetable for
withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Join us Thursday, June 2nd.
Dear xxxx,
We need a plan to end our massive, open-ended occupation of
Afghanistan and bring our troops home.
The war in Afghanistan has already lasted longer than any war in our
country's history. And while we know that we'll start bringing home
some troops in July, we don't know when our military occupation of the
country will finally come to an end.
The American people deserve to know that there's an end date for the
war in Afghanistan, just like we have for Iraq.
Last year, Sen. Udall voted to support a timetable for withdrawal from
Afghanistan. But Sen. Udall has not co-sponsored a similar bill
introduced this year by Sen. Barbara Boxer.
With the Obama administration making critical decisions right now
about our troop levels in Afghanistan, senators who support a timeline
for withdrawal need to speak out now.
So we've set up a meeting at Senator Tom Udall's office so that you
can ask that Sen. Udall do just that.
RSVP to join the meeting with Sen. Udall's staff to ask Sen. Udall to
support a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
When: Thursday, June 2, 3:00 PM — 4:00 PM
Where: Santa Fe, NM (full location after RSVP)
Why: Meet with Sen. Udall's staff to support a timetable for
withdrawal.
RSVP to attend this important meeting.
Here's how the Huffington Post describes the Boxer bill:
....[Boxer's] Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States
Combat Forces from Afghanistan Act, [...] would put Congress' backing
behind the withdrawal of American troops beginning on July 1. The bill
would also require President Barack Obama to submit a plan to Congress
by July 31 for the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces,
including a completion day.1
In just a few weeks, the National Defense Authorization Act will start
moving in the Senate. Senator Boxer's legislation will likely be
offered as an amendment to that bill.
It's important that Sen. Udall not sit on the sidelines until that
vote.
A spokesperson for the president's National Security Council was just
quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying, "The president has made
no decision about the scope and pace of the drawdown that will begin
in July."2
And the same article reports that the military's may initially propose
a token withdrawal of no more than 10,000 troops this year. The Obama
administration will be looking at Congress to gauge the level of
support for various alternatives for ending the war in Afghanistan.
Whether Sen. Udall co-sponsors the bill or not will be a signal to the
Obama administration. Sen. Udall needs to send the strongest signal
possible that he supports something more than a token withdrawal in
July and that he supports a withdrawal on a timetable with an end
date. And the best way to do that is to co-sponsor the Boxer bill.
Click here to RSVP to attend the meeting with Sen. Udall's staff to
ask Sen. Udall to support a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
We'll make it easy for you and provide you all the materials you
need.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Notes:
1. "Howard Dean's Democracy For America Group Launches First
Afghanistan Withdrawal Campaign," Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post,
05-09-2011.
2. "Military Draws Up Afghan Exit Plan," Julian E. Barnes and Adam
Entous, Wall Street Journal, 05-10-2011.
On May 27, 2:51 pm, robert.stea...@att.net wrote:
> Yes, Doug, I got that from MoveOn and immediately tried to RSVP but was told the
> roster had been filled already. That was fast. Maybe we can find out who is
> going and tap them for NMRA membership. I'll also ask for a report from MoveOn
> on the results. Bob
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Conwell <earthwal...@yahoo.com>
> >nmra+uns...@googlegroups.com.
action, must be the same meeting as MoveOn's.
Mark
Meeting in Santa Fe: Ask Sen. Udall to support a timetable for
withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Join us Thursday, June 2nd.
Dear xxxx,
We need a plan to end our massive, open-ended occupation of
Afghanistan and bring our troops home.
The war in Afghanistan has already lasted longer than any war in our
country's history. And while we know that we'll start bringing home
some troops in July, we don't know when our military occupation of the
country will finally come to an end.
The American people deserve to know that there's an end date for the
war in Afghanistan, just like we have for Iraq.
Last year, Sen. Udall voted to support a timetable for withdrawal from
Afghanistan. But Sen. Udall has not co-sponsored a similar bill
introduced this year by Sen. Barbara Boxer.
With the Obama administration making critical decisions right now
about our troop levels in Afghanistan, senators who support a timeline
for withdrawal need to speak out now.
So we've set up a meeting at Senator Tom Udall's office so that you
can ask that Sen. Udall do just that.
RSVP to join the meeting with Sen. Udall's staff to ask Sen. Udall to
support a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
When: Thursday, June 2, 3:00 PM — 4:00 PM
Where: Santa Fe, NM (full location after RSVP)
Why: Meet with Sen. Udall's staff to support a timetable for
withdrawal.
RSVP to attend this important meeting.
Here's how the Huffington Post describes the Boxer bill:
....[Boxer's] Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States
Combat Forces from Afghanistan Act, [...] would put Congress' backing
behind the withdrawal of American troops beginning on July 1. The bill
would also require President Barack Obama to submit a plan to Congress
by July 31 for the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces,
including a completion day.1
In just a few weeks, the National Defense Authorization Act will start
moving in the Senate. Senator Boxer's legislation will likely be
offered as an amendment to that bill.
It's important that Sen. Udall not sit on the sidelines until that
vote.
A spokesperson for the president's National Security Council was just
quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying, "The president has made
no decision about the scope and pace of the drawdown that will begin
in July."2
And the same article reports that the military's may initially propose
a token withdrawal of no more than 10,000 troops this year. The Obama
administration will be looking at Congress to gauge the level of
support for various alternatives for ending the war in Afghanistan.
Whether Sen. Udall co-sponsors the bill or not will be a signal to the
Obama administration. Sen. Udall needs to send the strongest signal
possible that he supports something more than a token withdrawal in
July and that he supports a withdrawal on a timetable with an end
date. And the best way to do that is to co-sponsor the Boxer bill.
Click here to RSVP to attend the meeting with Sen. Udall's staff to
ask Sen. Udall to support a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
We'll make it easy for you and provide you all the materials you
need.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Notes:
1. "Howard Dean's Democracy For America Group Launches First
Afghanistan Withdrawal Campaign," Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post,
05-09-2011.
2. "Military Draws Up Afghan Exit Plan," Julian E. Barnes and Adam
Entous, Wall Street Journal, 05-10-2011.
On May 27, 2:51 pm, robert.stea...@att.net wrote:
> Yes, Doug, I got that from MoveOn and immediately tried to RSVP but was told the
> roster had been filled already. That was fast. Maybe we can find out who is
> going and tap them for NMRA membership. I'll also ask for a report from MoveOn
> on the results. Bob
>
> ________________________________
> To: nm...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Fri, May 27, 2011 1:08:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [NMRA] Strongest House Vote Yet On Afghan Amendment
>
> Hi bob,
>
> Did you see through MoveOn that 10 people are meeting with Udall about ending
> Afghanistan war?
>
> Doug
>
> For journeys on the land and with traditional cultures of the Southwest and
> Mexico, visit
>
> EarthWalks at:http://earthwalks.org/ "There is enough for
> everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed."---Ghandi "If you try sometime,
> you just might find, you get what you need."---Rolling Stones
>
> --- On Fri, 5/27/11, CodeManBob <robert.stea...@att.net> wrote:
> Sent: Fri, May 27, 2011 1:08:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [NMRA] Strongest House Vote Yet On Afghan Amendment
>
> Hi bob,
>
> Did you see through MoveOn that 10 people are meeting with Udall about ending
> Afghanistan war?
>
> Doug
>
> For journeys on the land and with traditional cultures of the Southwest and
> Mexico, visit
>
> EarthWalks at:http://earthwalks.org/ "There is enough for
> everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed."---Ghandi "If you try sometime,
> you just might find, you get what you need."---Rolling Stones
>
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/nmra?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NMRA"
> group.
> To post to this group, send email to nm...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nmra+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/nmra?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NMRA"
> group.
> To post to this group, send email to nm...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages