Why Vote 'Yes' for the War and the IMF?

The Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are aggressively whipping House Democrats to support the 2009 war supplemental bill that seeks to steer another $10o billion in US tax dollars into the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time squandering at least $5 billion on the failed economic schemes of the International Monetary Fund.

But the more than 51 Democrats who opposed an earlier version of the supplemental are giving her a hard time and that's making the project a hard sell for Pelosi.

And rightly so. This is a very bad bill.

Californian Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, leading critics of the Iraq War, pointed out in a letter to their colleagues that "the primary intent of this legislation is to continue funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." That, they point out, is not what President Obama or Democrats in Congress were elected to do. "Continued funding of war operations in Iraq ensures a continued occupation thereby undermining the stated U.S. goal for withdrawal by the end of 2010," argue Woolsey and Kucinich. "Funds for Iraq should be dedicated to bringing all of our troops and contractors home immediately."

Masschusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, another anti-war Democrat, expressing concerns about the administration's push to increase the troop presence in Afghanistan, says, "As much as I love President Obama, I believe that this administration needs to come up with some benchmarks and an exit strategy."

Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur told Congressional Quarterly about personal lobbying of members by Pelosi:

Earlier this week, the Speaker approached Rep. Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio progressive who sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and asked Kaptur to reconsider her "no" vote.

Rather than making a case based on the policy, Kaptur said, the Speaker asserted that Obama and congressional Democrats needed to clear the decks of "the last old business" left over from the Bush administration.

Kaptur was unmoved.

"I don't agree with her analysis that we're cleaning up for Bush," said Kaptur, who worries that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly and that the administration lacks a plan for success in Afghanistan. "This is Obama's first chance. This is his first wave."

The questioning of the war is appropriate and necessary.

But it is also right to question the money for the IMF, which Kucinich and California Congressman Bob Filner, another Democrat, worry could be part of a broader scheme to "bail out private European banks with U.S. taxpayer money."

Even if the money goes straight into IMF coffers for its loan programs, that's a problem, as the IMF continues to pressure countries around the world to cut social services and undermine infrastructure as part of wrongheaded "structural adjustment" initiatives.

As of now, the word is that the conference report on the war supplemental will reach the floor early next week.

That means that lobbying of members this weekend could be crucial.

As Kucinich says, "From what I can see, [members who so far have refused to bow to pressure from the administration and Pelosi] are concerned about going home and having to explain why they voted for the war when their constituents are opposed to it..."

Opponents of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of unsound economic strategies, should feed those concerns by telling their representatives to vote "No" to war and the IMF.

Comments (19)

1. Figures like Kaptur and Kucinich need to not just demand a "no" vote, which by itself is not helpful, but widely publicize their alternative supplemental bill, that does better than the Democrats' current bill. Otherwise, Kaptur/Kucinich aren't providing leadership.

   Posted by syfriendly at 06/12/2009 @ 1:47pm

2. Extending the wars is hardly a clean-up, merely a continuation ... with the same results. That Einsteinian definition of insanity ... continuing to do the same but expecting different results.

   Or maybe not ... maybe this administration isn't insane, simply ambitious, not desirous of different results on a macro scale but on a personal scale, viz. to have their personal ambitions fulfulled, they must sell out to the same owners who called the shots before. Quite literally the shots.

   We've seen it all before, whether the Dem LBJ or the GOP RMN, same owners, same results.

   Posted by sloper at 06/12/2009 @ 2:14pm

3. Two basic questions must be asked-

   1. Is Obama as stupid as Bush was?

   2. Does he want to be saddled with an escalating war going into 2012?

   I think the answer to both is "no" and that he's not going to support an endless conflict over there until "victory" (that always vague neo-con goal).

   Posted by Mask at 06/12/2009 @ 2:23pm

4. ......he's not going to support an endless conflict over there until "victory"....

   Posted by Mask at 06/12/2009 @ 2:23pm

   And what is his present goal for increasing support/manpower and putting in his own general (below Petraeus)? To speed up the process until defeat?

   Magic's double crossing himself! Brilliant!

   Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 3:25pm

5. Yes our President is as stupid as Bush regarding the wars. He still only listening to the military brass and ignoring common sense and the will of the people who elected him. What a pity!

   He still does not remember Vietnam!

   Posted by notsleepy at 06/12/2009 @ 3:29pm

6. Johnson and Nixon wanted to end a war too. But they both ended up sticking around.

   Obama is falling into the same trap.

   Same goes for his economic policy. Like why do we still have federal regulations that regulate the labor market to lower wages (look at the fraud ridden visa programs) ? Obama can't make the hard choices. He can give awesome speeches though! :)

   Posted by masher at 06/12/2009 @ 4:58pm

7. Doesn't this bill also include the Graham amendment to all the President to quash reporting of anything that makes the U.S. look bad, (i.e., the Abu Gharaib photos)? Or has that, at least, been taken out?

   Posted by DavidSpero at 06/12/2009 @ 5:42pm

8. When G. W. Bush was our president, the war in Iraq had become greatly unpopular, and the Democrats had taken over Congress in 2006 initial war appropriations demanded time lines for withdrawal.

   Now that a Democrat is president and his party is still in control of the Congress there are suddenly no strings attached to war funding by the leadership. It has cowardly reverted to: "Sir, here is the money, do with it as you please and do not ask us for guidelines".

   Ms. Pelosi, after the 2006 elections you crowed "we are going to bring the troops home". Today, 2.5 years later, how many troops are in Iraq?

   Posted by DieterHeymann at 06/13/2009 @ 07:55am

9. Two Vietnams (that would be the disastrous quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan) and 20% unemployment are going to spell the end of the Obama administration in 2012.

   Posted by Citizen54 at 06/13/2009 @ 09:31am

10. Two Vietnams (that would be the disastrous quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan) and 20% unemployment are going to spell the end of the Obama administration in 2012. Posted by Citizen54 at 06/13/2009 @ 09:31am

    A nightmare, but increasingly likely. If so, look for multibillionaire Bloomberg to buy the GOP nomination, which is why he's just bought himself an illegal 3rd term as NYC mayor, to have a GOP political perch from which to run. He could spend $2 billion of his own cash in '12, not feel it & not have to spend any time fundraising.

    Obama might well be challenged & weakened further in a Dem primary challenge ... from Hillary inter al. If the bolod is in the water, she'll resign by early '11 to launch her attacks.

    Posted by sloper at 06/13/2009 @ 1:01pm

11. Woolsey and Kucinich are dorks and always will be. Obama is listening to his military brass and the CIA for good reason, they know what they are talking about.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/13/2009 @ 2:04pm

12. I remember the Great Depression. I was a young fox at the time. There were many remarkable things going on. For instance, you'd walk the streets of your hometown at night and see some of your former neighbours selling used socks. What made such scenes all the more remarkable was the colour of the socks. From the foregoing it follows that it was not an especialy enjoyable period. And I was then so at lost as with what to do with my life... I remember members of my family, during casual conversations after lunch, hinting that it maybe was time for me to settle down. The thing is, I was more than ready for that. There was but a thing that prevented me to do so : the remembrance of my former love, Kathy the white fox from Detroit. But before I start talking about Kathy, let's go back to the Greay Depression. I have yet to give you the wider story. Maybe I should do so. Maybe in doing so I would help you get an idea of today's economic outlook. Already, many analysists have had to review their stance ; but they did so only until after I had made pretty clear that we were now confronted with one of the most serious crisis in our short history. And I had let it be known that if these lousy free-merketeers kept on making sweeping statements about our good prospects and a two figures growth just ahead of us and the business being on sound basis, the Crak Fox wouldn't be able to bear with the whole public debate anymore. I would exercise my option to kick their asses and put them through some hard times. I keep abreast of economics, and, as of 2008 I've kept on reading as many books as I could. So they had better been ready for a huge blow to their standing in society and a major setback regarding their plans to dictate the government's agenda.

    Posted by crackfox at 06/14/2009 @ 04:47am

13. But a later event changed the course of that story. A prominent foxe of similar beliefs than mine broke away form me and made that clear and public. We've had quarelled during the past months but I had never imagined fallouts of these proportions. And you have to keep in mind that I wasn't that popular within economists circles. I was relying on a very few, including that fellow. But he was a very self-righteous person and, once he had found out that I was a scoundrel, or so he thought that's what I was, and that scoundrels were not to be given any support whatsoever, he behaved accordingly. I no longer see the man and I don't know what became of him. In the coming year, I reached a high in my popularity and gained new support within the world of scholars so, within a few months, I had completely forgotten that fellow and what I had once felt was betrayal on his part. It may seem strange, but it should not be forgotten that, during that time, I sometimes had to sign as many as fifty autographs a day. That's how I had passed unharmed through the whole turmoil lightened up by his public statements against me. I was with each day gaining more support from all corners of society. The truth is, problems kept piling out but I just didn't see them anymore, exhilarated as I was by my new prominence. This prominence somehow entailed me to take new risks, but I will get back to this later. In the meantime, let's talk about that white foxy lady from Detroit.

    Posted by crackfox at 06/14/2009 @ 04:49am

14. "Woolsey and Kucinich are dorks and always will be. Obama is listening to his military brass and the CIA for good reason, they know what they are talking about."

    Sure they do. That's why Iraq and Afghanistan are going so well.

    Posted by onthehelm at 06/14/2009 @ 4:28pm

15. Posted by crackfox at 06/14/2009 @ 04:49am

    Maybe, a little less crack?

    Posted by Malcontent at 06/14/2009 @ 4:55pm

16. If the bolod is in the water, she'll resign by early '11 to launch her attacks. Posted by sloper at 06/13/2009 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    what does she do when the bolod isn't in the water?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/16/2009 @ 11:00am

17. The IMF is a tool to crush any form of social systems in poor countries to be taken over by private entities. The IMF needs to be dissolved or it's main operatives need to be overhauled. But, since the institution itself is over it's head in corruption, dissolving it and the World Bank would be a better option.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 06:40am

18. Posted by crackfox at 06/14/2009 @ 04:49am

    WTF?!?!?!? Mickey Spillane on crack or what?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 06:46am

19. This article is grim. If only half of it is true, we are in big, big trouble....

    http://rinf.com/alt-news/usa-news/the-american-empire-is-bankrupt/5827/

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/17/2009 @ 07:51am