Kucinich Anti-War Resolution Defeated But Number Of Democrats Voting Against Obama Afghan Policy Doubles

Jane Harman votes for more war; Marcy Winograd primaries her, promising "Jobs, Not Wars"

Before Dennis Kucinich's resolution was even debated yesterday, the Republicans tried to derail even the concept of Congress talking about it. Their attempt was defeated 225-195, only 5 Republicans-- John Campbell (R-CA), John Duncan (R-TN), Tim Johnston (R-IL), Walter Jones (R-NC), and Ron Paul (R-TX)-- joined the Democrats to allow the debate. Meanwhile these were the Democrats who crossed the aisle and voted against allowing a debate:

Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)
Mike Arcuri (Blue Dog-NY)
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
John Boccieri (D-OH)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA)
Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
Kathleen Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA)
Lincoln Davis (Blue Dog-TN)
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ)
Debbie Halvorson (D-IL)
Jim Himes (D-CT)
Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)
Larry Kissell (liar-NC)
Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)
Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)
Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)
John Salazar (Blue Dog-CO)
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)
Ike Skelton (D-MO)
Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH)
Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)
Harry Teague (D-NM)
David Wu (D-OR)

Regina Thomas, Barrow's primary opponent, was outraged by his votes yesterday.

"Just to think that the Congressman from GA-12 voted yesterday not to have a debate on ending the war. What happened to the democratic process of open and fair discussion? Why is it that Congressman Barrow voted not to debate whether we should end the war? To add insult to injury, he voted against a House Resolution to wind down this horrific and astronomical war, that we cannot afford and for which we continue to borrow money to pay for."

 
I watched the entire debate on C-Span. I was very impressed with Jack Kingston (R-GA) who, although a strong backer of the war, was the only Republican opponent of Kucinich's resolution, who was willing to look honestly at the bankrupt bipartisan war policy. The rest of the Republican members just spewed out the deceptive Ileana Ros-Lehtinen talking points that were leaked a few days ago.

Aside from Kucinich's well-documented presentations, the debate itself didn't add much light on the question but just gave the members an opportunity to babble on senselessly and thoughtlessly. Patrick Kennedy's emotional presentation about the shame of the press corps not even bothering to cover the debate should also have been thought provoking. The debate could easily have been taking place in the late 60s or early 70s about Vietnam. Almost nothing has changed. I'm sure that wasn't anyone who thought the resolution would be defeated. And it was. The final vote was 65-356.

Last June only 32 courageous Democrats were willing to oppose Obama's supplemental war budget. Yesterday, without Massa and without the out-of-town but still anti-war Conyers, there were 60. Ominously, among the new converts were Appropriations Committee chairman Dave Obey (D-WI).

Jerry Nadler will be the Blue America guest at Crooks and Liars this Saturday (11am, PT). This was his floor speech yesterday:

“Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution.

“I am not convinced that the United States and its allies can end the 35-year civil war in Afghanistan-- nor is that our responsibility. Weshould not use our troops to prop up a corrupt government. It is simply not justifiable to sacrifice more lives and more money on this war. We must rethink our policy. If we do not, we are doomed to failure and to further loss of American lives.

“In late 2001, we undertook a justified military action in Afghanistan in response to the attacks of 9/11, and, with moral clarity and singular focus, we destroyed the al-Qaeda camps, drove the Taliban from power, and pursued the perpetrators of mass-terrorism. I supported that action. Today, however, our presence in Afghanistan has become counterproductive. We are bogged down amidst a longstanding civil war between feuding Afghans of differing tribes, classes and regions, whose goals have little to do with our own.

“Moreover, our very presence in Afghanistan has fueled the rising insurgency and emboldened those who oppose foreign intervention or occupation of any kind. In seeking security and stability in Afghanistan, we have supported corrupt leaders with interests out of sync with the interests of ordinary Afghans. By backing the Afghan government, we have further distanced ourselves from the Afghan people and empowered the insurgency.

“If our mission in Afghanistan is indeed to prevent the safe harbor of terrorists within a weak or hospitable nation, that mission is largely accomplished, since we are told there are now fewer than 100 al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In reality, terrorist plots can be hatched anywhere, in any nation, including our own. In fact, much of the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Western Europe.

“This does not mean that we should stop pursuing terrorists. On the contrary, we must continue the multi-pronged effort to disrupt, dismantle and destroy their ability to harm the United States. We must continue to track and block terrorist financing across the globe, increase intelligence activities focused on terrorists, increase diplomacy to rally our allies to our cause against terrorism, and, if necessary, use our armed forces to attack terrorist targets wherever they may be-- a function quite distinct from using the military to secure a nation so that it can be rebuilt. Rebuilding Afghanistan is beyond both our capability, and our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the United States.

“I believe that a short and definitive timetable for withdrawing our troops is the only way to minimize further loss of life and to refocus our efforts more directly at the terrorists themselves.

"I have some reservations that the resolution before us seems to leave no room for a military role in Afghanistan under any circumstances.

“I believe we must reserve the right to use our armed forces to attack terrorist targets wherever they may be, and that would include terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, if they were re-established there. But those camps are not there now, and our troops should not be there either.

“Mr. Kucinich’s resolution points us in the right direction-- a direction far better than the direction in which we are now headed. Accordingly, I urge approval of the Kucinich resolution.

And here is Ron Paul's:



UPDATE: Healthcare Not Warfare

This morning we reached Marcy Winograd, the Blue America-endorsed candidate who is primarying corporate warmonger Jane Harman in Los Angeles. She was we Harman's vote against ending the war yesterday. "I disagree with my opponent's vocal support for the continued U.S. war and occupation of Afghanistan," she told us. "Though Harman decries the corruption in Afghanistan, she fails to see that a military solution is no solution at all because for every occupation there emerges a stronger counter-insurgency. When in Congress, I will stand with Congressman Kucinich in his call for diplomacy, not war. I appreciate that he brought this debate to the floor and encouraged Congress to recognize its constitutional powers."