It is a breath of fresh air to read ‘on-line’ about a growing number of seriously progressive candidates challenging the politically strategic and deceitful notion of “Let’s stay mum on Iraq and Afghanistan and the billions wasted occupying them for Mobile Oil and Boeing (among others) and maybe, just maybe, voters will not notice and connect the dot.”
Conventional wisdom or deceit if I may by mainstream media and political leaders in Congress and the White House is that maybe voters will direct their anger and ire elsewhere (Tea Bag Movement comes to mind with their intentional inability to connect the dots between our national deficit and defense (excuse me offense) spending,) like at the political party in power as they ignore or continue not talking about the wars.
It seems as if talking about THE WARS is like talking about SEX was during the 1950s. On that note lets hear what a Congressional candidate from California – challenging the Democratic Party machine of her state and the national Democratic party leadership – has to say about remaining SILENT on the wars.
Robert L. Hanafin, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired, VT NewsWill the Out of Iraq Caucus Live Up to Its Name? Speak Out by Marcy Winograd 08 June 2009
This was written way back in June 2009, before the on-line debate of the Pro-Peace Democrats and Independents shifted focus to Afghanistan.
“After the near comatose nod to [Obama administration] escalation of US troops in Afghanistan, passage of H.R. 2346, the 97-billion Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, was in doubt in the House – not because of the strength of the anti-war movement, which morphed into the elect-Obama-movement, nor due to the high suicide rate amongst veterans, but because the GOP [was] miffed the bill [contained] billions to increase the lending capacity of the International Monetary Fund.
With Republicans opposed or on the fence about the supplemental, the power to defeat the war-funding bill [rested] in the hands of those in the [Democratic Party] Out of Iraq Caucus, led by Los Angeles Congresswoman Maxine Waters, as well as with congress members who [wanted] to see the torture architects in the Bush administration held accountable for ordering water boarding, stress positions, rape, and more.
Besides setting aside another 97-billion for war and occupation, the 2009 supplemental also [included] the Graham-Lieberman Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009, which [allowed] the [Obama] administration to block the release of detainee photos. The senate voted to include this provision in the supplemental, which [meant] President Obama and the Pentagon can suppress any “photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States.”
In other words, a vote for this bill, with its Graham-Lieberman provision, [was] a vote for protecting those who were involved in the torture regime under the Bush administration.”
Why the Democratic Party is losing its base
(VT. Editors Note: Below is what we will not listen to, hear, read, or see in mainstream media or PBS.)
“If some of those same torturers are still in government today, [military officers] commanding a battalion or something greater, then the anti-war Democrats who, from the start, voted against the US invasion of Iraq may find themselves in a political stress position – with one arm tied to their anti-war base and the other to the Democratic leadership who opposes prosecution and wants to keep the Pandora’s box of war sins closed forever.”
Who was, or is, the Democratic Party Out of Iraq Caucus
“There are 73 members of the Out of Iraq Caucus; only 39 Democrats need to join the Republicans and effectively block the supplemental war spending bill. If there were ever a time for determined leadership, it is now — and the anti-war leader in the House [was] Waters.
The military says it needs the next batch of billions by July; otherwise other budget accounts will have to be raided to pay for the wars that never end.”
Who are not Out of Iraq Democrats? Who are pro-War Democrats?
Marcy Winograd who is an out of the mainstream-independent minded Democrat noted back in 2009 that, “If I were in Las Vegas, I wouldn’t bet odds on my 2010 congressional opponent Jane Harman voting to block the [Wars] supplemental. Other California Democrats she pointed out who were Pro-War as their Republican counterparts, and most likely to cave into defense and oil industry pressure to continue the wars are:
Congressman Howard L. Berman of California’s 28th District
Congressman Henry A. Waxman of California’s 30th District
Congressman Brad Sherman of California’s 27th District
Congressman Adam Schiff of California’s of California’s 29th District
An example of just how far Democrats will go the distance to not talk about Iraq or Afghanistan but will talk about the Israeli-Palestinian situation is this town hall meeting poll taken by Congressman Brad Sherman from his constituents in California’s 27th District.
The only foreign policy questions asked were in reference to:
1. Chinese foreign trade: In regard to foreign trade, I have been drafting legislation to revoke China’s Most Favored Nation status. When I discussed this legislation with President Obama, he said that he thought it would be too disruptive. What do you believe? Despite what the poll says, we are in debt up to our eyeballs to China, we revoke China’s Most Favored Nation status then what do we do when China asks for payment on our loans for Iraq and Afghanistan – invade and occupy China? DAH!
2. The Middle East Conflict where Democrat Sherman evidently needs to learn Geography for he totally leaves the occupation of Iraq out of the equation – like Iraq is not part of the Middle East – say what?
VT. Editorial comment: Simply put his poll is about as rigged and controlled to weed out questions about Iraq and Afghanistan as most polls asked by mainstream media today.If Congressman Sherman were running for a California city, county, or state level political office, one could understand his ignorance on Middle East foreign policy but My God Man you are in the U.S. Congress???????????????????????????????????
It asks thus,
Which statement best fits your views on the Middle East conflict?
a. We should strongly support Israel. [that one explains why there is no mention of the occupation of Iraq, potential conflict with Iran, what role Jordan, Syria, Yemen, and so on will play as we strongly support Israel. It is a loaded question.]
b. We should support Palestinians at least as much as we support Israel. [Again the focus is on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Israeli occupation of Palestine, but folks U.S. tax payers are only wasting a small portion of WAR DEBT to CHINA on this situation most in favor of Israel, U.S. troops do not occupy Palistine (YET), Iran, Syria, Jordan, Yemen or so on OUR U.S. Economy is wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of these Democrat mentioned here want to talk about that.]
c. We should just stay out of the conflict between Israel and Palestine all together [assuming that means to fiscal aid to either party, now that would almost be a cost savings to bring down our national debt. Of note, despite the lack of attention intentionally paid to Iraq and Afghanistan, more respondents either wanted to the U.S. to treat the Palestinians as fairly as the Israelis or not get involved period 53% versus only 47% who strongly supported Israel.]
Why this focus on Israel and Palestine totally ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan, potential threat of Iran, and further destablization of the entire Middle East-a destabilization BTW that Israel cannot take on alone.
How any candidate for national office let alone an incumbent could ignore our real foreign policy hot spots Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan is beyond the comprehension of VT???
Are politicians from both parties as naive or ignorant as mainstream media? Well they sure as heck THINK we are!
Which California Democrats lean toward Peace vs Offense Budgets?
Marcy Winograd notes that those Democrats most likely to challenged continued blank checks for the Pentagon would be of course Congresswomen Maxine Waters one of the original 132 House members who voted against the invasion of Iraq.
The other Democratic members of Congress from California she mentions as Pro-Peace members of the Out of Iraq Caucus are:
Congresswoman Diane Watson of California’s 33rd District
Congressman Bob Filner of California’s 51st District, who also chairs the House Veterans Affairs Committee
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of California’s 6th District
Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California’s 9th District
These would be the courageous politicians 2010 Candidate Winograd believed would just say nay, not another dime for these war crimes.
What role must the Pro-Peace/Anti-War movement play?
Candidate Winograd, herself a leader and activists in the Pro-Peace movement noted that the only way to stop the funding of war crimes and occupations is for the anti-war base that elected Obama speaks up at critical [moments].
The Enemy of PEACE is not only the Repubicans but the House Democratic Leadership – in a House and Party Divided
According to Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, the House Democratic leadership was hoping back in 2009 to change the hearts and minds of key[Peace] Democrats listed– above.
On the Pro-War Democratic Leadership’s hit list were Waters, Watson, and Woolsey [in California], in addition to Congressman Dennis Kucinch of Ohio, and Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and on the Congressional Black Caucus who should not have had to swallow such a bitter and bloody pill to stay in good favor with those in the [Democratic leadership] who control the committee chairs.
With army commander [General George] Casey suggesting we need to occupy Iraq for another ten years and the Pentagon sending another 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, Candidate Winograd noted that speaking up will require high-decibel action.
With the upcoming Pro-Peace deomonstrations in Washington DC, Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA is is NOW time to take that decibel a couple of notes higher than way back in June 2009, because the Democratic leadership as expemplified by what happened in California back in 2009, the Democratic leadership nor President Obama has YET TO HEAR US!!!
Marcy Winograd is running for Congress in 2010, challenging Pro-War Democrat Jane Harman in southern California’s 36th district. For more on the race, visit Winograd4Congress.com and become a fan on Facebook at Marcy Winograd for Congress.
This story originally written by Marcy Winograd back in June 2009 with a focus on that time frame has been updated with emphasis added by Major Bobby Hanafin, VT News.
LINK TO ORIGINAL STORY – CLICK HERE
That emphasis for the Peace movement remains the SAME!!!
Readers are more than welcome to use the articles I’ve posted on Veterans Today, I’ve had to take a break from VT as Veterans Issues and Peace Activism Editor and staff writer due to personal medical reasons in our military family that take away too much time needed to properly express future stories or respond to readers in a timely manner.
My association with VT since its founding in 2004 has been a very rewarding experience for me.
Retired from both the Air Force and Civil Service. Went in the regular Army at 17 during Vietnam (1968), stayed in the Army Reserve to complete my eight year commitment in 1976. Served in Air Defense Artillery, and a Mechanized Infantry Division (4MID) at Fort Carson, Co. Used the GI Bill to go to college, worked full time at the VA, and non-scholarship Air Force 2-Year ROTC program for prior service military. Commissioned in the Air Force in 1977. Served as a Military Intelligence Officer from 1977 to 1994. Upon retirement I entered retail drugstore management training with Safeway Drugs Stores in California. Retail Sales Management was not my cup of tea, so I applied my former U.S. Civil Service status with the VA to get my foot in the door at the Justice Department, and later Department of the Navy retiring with disability from the Civil Service in 2000.
I’ve been with Veterans Today since the site originated. I’m now on the Editorial Board. I was also on the Editorial Board of Our Troops News Ladder another progressive leaning Veterans and Military Family news clearing house.
I remain married for over 45 years. I am both a Vietnam Era and Gulf War Veteran. I served on Okinawa and Fort Carson, Colorado during Vietnam and in the Office of the Air Force Inspector General at Norton AFB, CA during Desert Storm. I retired from the Air Force in 1994 having worked on the Air Staff and Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon.
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
