Robert Greenwald to GMDers: Hold Welch to Pledge on War Funding. [Updated]

Two points (0.00 / 0)

First, there's a difference between what Robert Greenwald is asking for and what Rep. Welch pledged to. Peter promised to vote against any war funding that did not include a troop withdrawal timetable. Greenwald is hoping to end the war(s), period.

Second, it's great to activate GMDers to call Peter Welch to register their opinions on an issue of importance to most of us, but since when did we have to rely on (ahem) outside agitators to make it happen?

I also have questions: is this bill funding just the Iraq war? And don't we already have troop withdrawal schedules for Iraq? My impression from doing some scanning is that the bill includes Afghanistan -- and that's where the troop withdrawal issue is.

In any case, I'd like to hope that Peter will keep his promise rather than caving in to some quid pro quo from leadership. And I called to tell him so.

NanuqFC
The American people are quite competent to judge a political party that works both sides of the street. ~ FDR, Boston, Nov. 4, 1944

---

by: NanuqFC @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 13:40:20 PM CDT

This is war funding without a timetable in it. (4.00 / 4)

The language of the letter was expressing, "opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment."

The timeline you're thinking of is executive, and therefore discretionary and subject to change. I think the reason the letter called for opposition to supplementals without timelines is that the timelines were intended to be legislative, and binding on the President as a matter of law.

So we're still looking at a supplemental being brought to the floor in the absence of a timeline tied directly to the funds it provides.

I'm not a huge fan of pledges in general, but this one's out there. And even though I'm positive that every one of the Members who signed that letter and is now thinking of voting for the supplemental anyway has come up with a really convincing sounding reason to do it, I'm also thinking of what it does to the credibility of the Progressive Caucus and other supporters when they look for those reasons.

By my count, something like 60 of the nearly 90 Members who signed that letter are now among those either wavering or clinging to new rationales.

If circumstances should change, and President Obama should find it necessary to remain in Iraq longer than his own current timeline dictates, or perhaps even beyond the end of his term in office, what will be the authority of House progressives when they speak collectively on this issue again? Or on any other issue?

If 2/3 of the signatories to a letter on an issue as important as this find their commitments situational and nothing more, what sorts of exercises of power in the House does anyone imagine that Welch and his fellow travelers are going to be able to have taken seriously?

---

by: Kagro X @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 14:42:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Kagro X n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: NanuqFC @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 14:53:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Other info (4.00 / 1)

A friend sent me an email with the following info, essentially confirming Kagro X:

My understanding is that there is no timetable, but we've said we'll do what the Iraqis want us to do, but that that is less than firm. Certainly there has been no supplemental request that has included any kind of complete timetable for withdrawal. As you'll recall, we regularly have one general or another suggesting on the news shows that maybe we can get out in that time, maybe we can't, what does "withdrawal" mean. That hardly constitutes a "timetable."

So we really need Peter to keep his promises, even though others might justify breaking theirs.

NanuqFC
It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath. ~ Aeschylus

---

by: NanuqFC @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 15:30:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ditto, welcome back Kagro! :) n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Christian Avard @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 14:54:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

of timetables and time horizons... (4.00 / 1)

Do we have a deadline? We have a time frame with overall goals - both of which seem to be in flux.

I dunno. Call me cynical. I'm confident Obama won't be starting wars, but I'm not confident of his commitment to ending them.

As far as "outside agitation"... if its a Town Meeting school budget we're talking about, sure - but this is an international issue, and anybody who wants to should have their say. Peter's actions on the floor on this could impact everyone, everywhere.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 17:36:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, what a world (0.00 / 0)

Call me cynical.

OK, questionable lead-in...

I'm confident Obama won't be starting wars

Really? I'm pretty sure he's already covertly started one in Western Pakistan, and North Korea and/or Iran aren't looking any less likely than when Bush was in office, at least if one is so gullible as to listen to that fringe player, the MSM.

I'm not confident of his commitment to ending them.

Well, it's not like he ran on a platform of doing so!!!

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

---

by: wdh3 @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 19:50:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

asdf (0.00 / 0)

'm pretty sure he's already covertly started one in Western Pakistan

A war is more than a bunch of remote controlled drones, or the term doesn't mean anything anymore.

North Korea and/or Iran aren't looking any less likely than when Bush was in office

Sorry, but that's just goofy. I suspect we already would've attacked Iran if Bush were still in office.

Obama is obviously grooving on his new, re-engaged America schtick internationally, and a military conflict with Iran would completely trash that. He does not want to go there. Obviously.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:54:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good Question (0.00 / 0)

since when did we have to rely on (ahem) outside agitators to make it (political action) happen?

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

---

by: wdh3 @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 19:46:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

You don't think it's a good thing when events in Vermont are important enough to gain attention from out of state? I do.

---

by: Jack McCullough @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 06:39:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Saying That (0.00 / 0)

I just agree with the idea that we should be active and on it ourselves and not need "outside agitators" to spur us to political action...

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

---

by: wdh3 @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 11:03:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Give credit where credit is due (4.00 / 2)

Digby has a great write-up of this campaign.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/underground-drama-by-digby-for-some.html

Gotta give credit to the blogosphere (Jane Hamsher in particular) for keeping the issue alive.  

---

by: Christian Avard @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 14:35:16 PM CDT

Another piece of the puzzle (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the digby link -- like many, I hadn't seen the IMF link in most of the sources I regularly read, and it wasn't mentioned in the fdl link in the post.

NanuqFC
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, Inaugural Address, 1953

---

by: NanuqFC @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 15:00:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Welch leaning Yes... (0.00 / 0)

http://action.firedoglake.com/...

this morning.

---

by: JayV @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 08:55:52 AM CDT

Peter Welch kept his word (4.00 / 1)

Peter Welch has taken a lot of shit over his position on the war in Iraq (http://fivebeforechaos.com/2007/11/11/welch-gets-earful/), and around here we've definitely argued the need to keep up the pressure. For instance, this thread is all about providing the motivation and the backing to stand up to the administration and the leadership in Congress to stand by his pledge.

The update from NanuqFC at the top shows us the results: we didn't win the vote to deny funds for the war without a timetable for withdrawal, but Peter Welch stood up for the Vermonters who elected him and stood by his pledge.

Thanks, Peter.

---

by: Jack McCullough @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 21:23:30 PM CDT

Of course... (4.00 / 1)

...now he's just encouraged us :)

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:39:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think Welch voted this way because it was easy ... (3.00 / 2)

it was obvious the vote was going to be in favor of war.

Welch has consistently caved in to the DC Democratic "leadership", and there is absolutely no reason to believe he wouldn't have voted the Pelosi way again if she had insisted on it.

I'll be impressed with Welch or Sanders when they stop supporting the "leadership" ... that'll be a sign they honestly want change.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:02:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So in other words . . . (0.00 / 0)

No matter what he did yesterday you would have been against it.

In that case, why would he ever listen to you?

---

by: Jack McCullough @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:09:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No ... I didn't say what you want me to be saying ... (4.00 / 1)

I wrote/stated "I'll be impressed with Welch or Sanders when they stop supporting the "leadership" ... that'll be a sign they honestly want change."

It's not about what he did yesterday. As I said, that was an easy vote to cast because it wouldn't have affected the outcome either way ... the votes were already counted and in before the actual act.

And why would he listen to me? Probably no reason .. he's not that interested in doing things differently.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:08:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]