[NYTr] 89 Lawmakers Write to Bush to Demand End of War Funding.

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[Ah. John Conyers and Charlie Rangel are awake again. Congress can
simply stop funding the war by refusing to approve a budget, of course.
Dennis Kucinich has been pointing out this obvious fact for months.

Naturally, Conyers and the others on the Judiciary Committee could
start impeachment proceedings.  But some of them have written a letter,
including those who have been staunch defenders of the US Constitution
right along, like Maxine Waters. It's a start. See earlier report on the
letter from Oct 10 (second item). It seems since Oct 10, one more member
has joined in addition to the original 88. -NYTr]


Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

US Lawmakers Demand Suspension of Iraq War Funds

Washington, Oct 17 (Prensa Latina) Nearly 100 US congresspeople sent a
letter to President George W. Bush to demand the freezing of funds for
the Iraqi war, legislative sources confirmed on Wednesday.

More than 3,800 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, another 28,000
were wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were also killed or are
unprotected, all this situation must end, says the letter.

The document adds that the war has displaced nearly four million
Iraqis, and US taxpayers have paid more than 500 billion dollars.

The end of the US military occupation of Iraq will begin the day when
Democrats and Republicans are more responsible, and the Congress
succeeds in stopping the strategy of the federal administration, points
out the letter.

A first step and a simple reality would consist of cutting the flow of
money for the US armed forces deployed in Iraq, said Ron Paul, a
Republican from Texas.

In addition to Paul, another 88 Democratic lawmakers signed the letter
sent to the White House to demand the relocation of the troops before
the end of Bush's term in 2009.

Other congresspeople who signed the letter are Lynn Woolsey, Barbara
Lee, Maxine Waters, Ellen Tauscher, Maurice Hinchey, Diane Watson, Ed
Pastor, Barney Frank, Danny Davis, John Conyers and Charles Rangel.

ef jg jvj

PL-21

                              ***

Op-Ed News - Oct 10, 2007
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_071010_only_one_congress_me.htm

Only One Congress Member Gets It

by David Swanson

On Wednesday, I spoke with Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey
about getting out of Iraq. They are moving in the right direction, but
are not yet serious about ending the occupation this year. They are
resigned to putting up an effort in a misguided approach, and then
hoping to actually end it in 2009. It has not yet penetrated anyone's
understanding that the best chance we have to end the occupation of
Iraq between now and 2013 is during the next 14 months.

For almost a year Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been saying that the
Democratic leadership in Congress should end the occupation of Iraq by
not bringing up for a vote any more bills to fund it. For all these
months, he has been the only member of Congress willing to say this.

The closest position espoused by any of the other 534 members of the
House and Senate is that Congress should pass a bill to fund only the
withdrawal of the troops and mercenaries. Of course, they don't say
mercenaries but "contractors," and instead of withdrawal they say (and
often mean) "redeployment," and they're willing to fund another year or
more of the occupation if the bill doing so "funds the redeployment" by
January 2009. This is the position of the 88 congress members who have
signed the Peace Pledge Letter that is finally attracting a little
attention. Or, rather, it would be their position if you could believe
them. Most of the 88 just voted billions more for the occupation in a
Continuing Resolution.

But here's the chief problem with the "fund a withdrawal" idea. It
keeps everyone talking in terms of passing a bill. And once that bill
fails in the Senate or is vetoed, everyone will still be talking in
terms of passing a bill, but they'll pass a bill that simply funds the
occupation. The idea that the Pentagon needs money to withdraw the
troops and mercenaries is absurd. That's pocket change for the
Pentagon. Kucinich advocates requiring Bush to use money already
appropriated.

A recent poll offered people a choice of spending another $200 billion
without conditions (13 percent of the country supported this), spending
$200 billion but requiring that all troops be home within a year (19
percent), spending $50 billion and requiring that all troops be home in
six months (14 percent), or requiring Bush to use existing funds to
bring all troops home in six months (40 percent). One congress member
represents 40 percent of Americans.

On Wednesday, Kucinich released a statement demanding that the
Democratic leadership require Bush to use existing funds to end the
occupation. "If they don't, then they're just as responsible as the
President for continuing this illegal and immoral war," said Kucinich,
"and open to accusations of fraud upon the American people for
promising during last year's elections that Democratic control of the
Congress would mean an end to the war. Instead of ending the war, the
leadership has knuckled under time and time again and given the
President every dollar he's asked for to continue it."

By delaying a vote until early next year on the Defense Department's
$190 billion appropriation bill, the Democratic leaders of the House
and the Senate have tacitly acknowledged that the war effort is already
fully funded for the next several months, Kucinich said. "The
leadership needs to force a showdown with the President and demand that
those billions of dollars be used to bring our troops home now." He
estimated the cost to withdraw all troops and equipment at between $5
billion and $10 billion. "That money is there right now. There is no
excuse not to use it to bring our troops home."

Kucinich, the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted against
the original war authorization in 2002 and every supplemental
war-funding appropriation since, said Democratic protestations that
they don't have the votes to block additional funding "is a hoax. You
don't need votes. All we need is the backbone to exercise our
Constitutional authority and the integrity to keep our word to the
voters to do what we said we would do: end this war. Now."

Kucinich has been saying this for many months and has failed, as far as
I know, to bring a single additional congress member around to his
position. Meanwhile, the Progressive Caucus, co-chaired by Woolsey and
Lee, has organized 88 congress members to sign their letter, which
begins

"Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only
support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in
Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe
redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office."

Kucinich is one of the 88 who have signed. If enough congress members
back this letter and stand behind it, it will become very difficult for
Pelosi to pass any Iraq funding bill other than the worst sort of
unconditional funding that will win considerable backing from
Republicans. A bill to fund a withdrawal will die in the Senate or be
vetoed. At that point, Pelosi will search around for a bill she can
pass without the support of progressives. What would make her less
likely to go this route would be if the 87 other than Kucinich who have
signed the letter were talking about it in terms of the ultimate goal
of not passing any bill. Instead they are talking in terms of
pressuring the Senate to pass their bill. The words "sixty senators"
are constantly on their lips, even though everyone knows the next
impossible feat after winning over 60 senators would have to be winning
over 67 senators (60 to get past a filibuster, 67 to get past a veto).

At an event I attended Wednesday evening (see photo album), Congressman
Jim Moran gave a speech in which he claimed that the Democrats could
not end the occupation without 60 senators. This is crazy. Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid could single-handedly refuse to bring Iraq
funding bills up for votes. Or 41 senators could block any such bill.
And Nancy Pelosi could single-handedly refuse to bring Iraq funding
bills up for a vote. It would take 218 members signing a petition to
force a vote against her will. And she has shown how effectively she
can assert her will when she wants to.

Congresswomen Woolsey and Lee spoke after Moran. They spoke of the
importance of the House acting as it should regardless of the Senate,
but then lamented the state of the Senate and concluded that at least
they'd end the occupation in 2009. I talked to Woolsey and Lee
separately afterwards.

Woolsey did not at first even understand what I was trying to tell her.
She insisted that 60 senate votes are needed. I explained that only 41
or 1 (Harry Reid's) would do it once we get to the point of blocking
bills. She understood, but clearly believed the whole discussion was
outside the realm of discourse on Capitol Hill.

Lee seemed to understand more quickly what I was saying, but also to
lack any confidence that a real attempt to end the occupation this year
could get off the ground. I asked her what would happen if her proposal
for funding "redeployment" died in the Senate or on the president's
desk. Would people understand that it was time to pass no legislation,
or would they insist on passing some bill, any bill? The latter, she
said. But she expressed a willingness to start trying to talk in terms
of blocking any bills to fund the occupation.

Sadly, the list we need to be watching even more than the list of
signers of the Peace Pledge letter, is the list of congress members who
want to end the occupation, not by passing a bill, but by blocking one.
This list currently has only one person's name on it. If it doesn't
grow quickly, and if the presidential election doesn't change
drastically, we will be facing at least five more years of occupying
Iraq.