Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
House Votes on Iraq Withdrawal Amendent: 300 for War; 128 for Getting Out "Soon"
On the evening of May 25 the U.S. House of Representatives considered an amendment offered by Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) calling for an exit strategy from Iraq. Amendment No. 26 simply stated:
"It is the sense of Congress that the president should-
(1) develop a plan as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act to provide for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq; and
(2) transmit to the congressional defense committees a report that contains the plan described in paragraph (1)."
The simple resolution was a moderate one. It set no specific time table for withdrawal in an effort to make it easy for members of Congress to agree. After-all we always claim we intend to leave Iraq. This amendment was an opportunity to make leaving Iraq the policy of the United States. The amendment, part of the debate on the authorization for the Department of Defense was allotted 30 minutes on the floor of the House of Representatives 15 minutes for each side.
In the end the amendment failed by a vote of 300 to 128 with 5 not voting. Because Rep. Woolsey insisted on a roll call vote we now know who needs to convinced. There were some disappointing votes including the Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi as well as members generally seen as liberals including Rep. Cardin (D-MD), Rep. Stenny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) and Rep. Udall (D-CO). Five Republicans voted for the amendment, most notably Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) who is well known for insisting that the French Fries sold in the Capitol be re-named "Freedom Fries."
Rep. Woolsey opened the debate noting that her amendment was in honor of the "brave men and women who are serving in Iraq" as "the best way to support them is to establish a plan to bring them home." She went on to point out:
". . . our continued presence in Iraq after the election has caused America to be seen by the Iraqi people as an occupying power, not as a liberating force. Our continued presence in Iraq works against efforts for democracy, provides a rallying point for angry insurgents, and ultimately makes the United States less safe."
She also made it clear she does not want to abandon Iraq recognizing it is a country that has been devastated saying "We must assist Iraq, not through our military but through international humanitarian efforts to rebuild their war-torn economic and physical infrastructure."
Leading the opposition to the amendment was Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA). He portrayed the amendment as sending a message to U.S. opponents:
"This amendment is a message-sender. It is a message-sender to people like Al Sadr who are considering even now continuing to foment rebellion against the elected government in Iraq. It is a message-sender to Zarqawi and his followers, who think that perhaps the United States doe not have the stomach to continue to oppose them. It is a message-sender to our troops, who might, in seeing if this amendment should pass, feel that the resolve of the American people is fading away."
In an ironic use of Mohandas Gandhi, certainly no advocate of war, Rep.Geoff Davis (R-KY) argued that because Iraqis have shown they want democracy we should continue our occupation of Iraq, saying: "Mohandas Gandhi said, ‘The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.’ The people have democracy in their hearts. They can feel it within their grasp. They can look up and see it shining near them. We just have to stand and give them a hand to reach it." Rep. Davis made clear what the exit strategy of war supporters is:
"Let our foes understand one thing. Our exit strategy from Iraq is simply this: winning the war on terror. We must hold firm to the course and be resolved in our determination to with this fight."
Perhaps the most important speech in favor of an exit strategy came from Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). His district in North Carolina is one that is very supportive of the military. His opposition to the continuation of the war is of interest because he had been a supporter of the war, a point he highlighted in his opening: "This is about a policy, that I believed when I voted 2 years ago to commit the troops that I was making my decision on facts. Since that time I have been very disappointed in what I have learned about the justification for going into Iraq." He explained:
". . . all this amendment does is just say that it is time for the Congress to meet its responsibility. The responsibility of Congress is to make decisions whether we should send our men and women to war or not send them to war. What we are saying here tonight is we think it is time for the Congress to begin, to start the debate and discussion of what the exit strategy is of this government . . ."
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) echoed Rep. Jones’s concern for Congress doing its "constitutional duty." She pointed out that it "is a constitutional duty by this Congress to declare war. We failed in that duty a couple of years ago." She argued, now, by debating withdrawal the Congress would be correcting that constitutional error.
A majority in Congress requires 218 votes. From this vote, it is evident that those advocating an end to the war a view that now represents the majority of the people of the United States are 90 votes away from success in the House of Representatives. With an election year coming in 2006, support for the war diminishing, the cost in human lives and the U.S. treasury escalating, a concerted effort by the anti-war movement to convince members of Congress should be the focus. Success is achievable.
As Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA), noted:
". . . when he was Governor of Texas, this is the advice that George W. Bush gave President Clinton about the war in Kosovo. Victory, he said, means exit strategy, and it is important for the President of the United States to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
The case for an exit strategy in Iraq is even stronger than for Kosovo. The current strategy is failing. As Rep. Meehan said: "Without an exit strategy to win the peace and bring our troops home, our policy is going in circles." Let us hope that President Bush listens to the advice of Governor Bush.
KEVIN ZEESE is Director of Democracy Rising. You can comment on this column by visiting his blogspot on DemocracyRising.US.