Experience Advocacy

The House nad Senate support a thorough reversal of the Bush-Cheney Iraq war policy.It is one of the great under reported stories in the main stream media, the alternative progressive media and the blogosphere. In supporting an end to Bush’s  destructive policy to peoples lives–Iraqis, Americans, Allies– the House and Senate support a new President’s orderly withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Congress has given the new President lots of maneuvering room to redirect our Iraq and national security policy.

The House and Senate have made two other matters abundantly clear: the Iraq War has neglected our efforts in dealing effectively and resolutely with Al Queda; it has also given the Taliban an added and unnecessary advantage in Afghanistan.

As long as Bush is President there are no serious limitations on his authority because of his veto power.  Nearly all House and Senate Republicans support the President’s veto when exercised. Only a new President, with a different Iraq  and national security policy, can lead the US government to give up the folly of its ways.

A majority of the House repeatedly, and the Senate once, voted for a date certain orderly redeployment of troops from Iraq. In addition,  the House in its approval of the Defense Authorization legislation in 2008 established its support for a major overhaul of our Iraq and national security policy. That legislation has not been considered on the Senate floor. 

Here’s what the House did in broad outline:

1. Said no to privatizing the war. It barred contracting out inherent governmental functions in combat areas. Embedded in the policies that have been approved are serious accountability requirements for military contractors and their employees.

2. Status of forces agreements (SOFA) negotiated between the US and Iraq’s government, dealing with the defense of Iraq internally or externally, have no legal effect unless the agreement is a treaty that the Senate has given its advice and consent to and/or is specifically authorized by an Act of Congress.

3. Barred contractors and their employees from interrogating prisoners. Torture is no longer privatized thereby, if enacted, would end our Pontius Pilate policy of approving torture. 

4. Insist on setting high standards for the government by ruling out torture. In doing so, the House followed the example set by Senator Obama in his pioneering work in the Illinois state legislature: he led the fight to require the video taping police interrogations in felony cases. The House approved legislation requiring videotaping and electronic recording during detainee interrogations that the Defense Department (DOD) controls.

4. DOD is barred from using funds authorized by the legislation for propoganda. The enforcemnt mechanism calls for oversight by the hard-hitting DOD Inspector General (IG) and the General Accounting Office (GAO). (In my experience the IG offices and GAO have provided stellar examples of public service even when the rest of the government, particularly DOD and the Justice Department, have abused power and lied.)

5. The House adopted a whole host of health amendments that protect the women and men serving in our armed forces. Protections and benefits run after discharge. These protections include addressing the disturbing number of Iraq war related suicides.  

6. The Senate Armed Services Committee legislation focused on broad strategic matters in addition to dealing with the legislation’s details. The Senate Committee’s focus shows a fundamental disapproval of the direction Bush-Cheney has taken our government. It called for changes in three broad areas: (a) provide our armed services with  resources, training and technology so that combat and stabilizing operations can succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan; (b) recognize that the readiness of the military to perform necessary missions to prevent and protect has been seriously neglected; (c) transform leadership in DOD to deal with threats to our security in the 21st century. These include countering threats from non-state actors and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The House and Senate have laid the basis for a policy from a new President that will lead to cooperation between the President, DOD and most of the Congress. The House and Senate provide a valuable lesson.  Congress, in a new Administration can initiate constructive policy steps that are based on feedback it knows how to receive– a feedback that often doesn’t get through complex bureaucracies. such as DOD.

The policy will work only if the new President is committed to a new direction in Iraq. That policy has to be based on an orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. That withdrawal enables us to meet our responsibilities to the Iraq people and its refugees in that country’s rebuilding efforts.

The Senate defied President Bush by approving a comprehensive GI bill for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan covering members of the National Guard as well. In the same bill it surrendered to Bush by approving an appropriation for the Iraq war into 2009.

All of the Senate Democrats, and a majority of the Senate Republicans, supported the GI Bill over Bush’s objections. The bill additionally included social safety net support for Medicaid, unemployment insurance and Katrina recovery monies.

The Senate floor reminded me of John Kenneth Galbraith’s astute 1960 book “The Liberal Hour.” Galbraith observed that in the sixth year of a Senate term Republicans cast liberal votes. They hope voters will have amnesia about their five years of casting their lot with conservatives. Ever fearful of the November elections, most Republican Senators abandoned Bush and his weak political condition. Today Bush has a lower approval rating than Truman at his lowest point and Nixon when he resigned.

The vote on Iraq war spending had encouraging news. A majority of Senate Democrats opposed the funding including the Senate’s Democratic leadership–Reid, Durbin and Murray. Last year on a similar vote only 11 anti-Iraq war Senators voted against the Iraq War. This time the vote included 24 Democratic Senators, one Republican and one Independent (Sanders, Vt) who caucuses with the Democrats. Actually the total of announced opponents was 28–Senator Obama missed the vote because he was campaigning in Florida and Senator Kennedy is ill.

The Senate disappointed anti-war opponents because Senator Reid did not structure votes to create a legislative date certain to begin and end a safe and orderly deployment of troops from Iraq. Senate Republicans objected to such a vote. Even though it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster such a vote would have had the support of all, or nearly all, the Senate Democrats and would have tested the seriousness of Republicans in their pursuit of “the liberal hour.” It would have been a valuable vote to take into the fall campaign.

The Bush Administration will argue that money for the troops will run out. That argument is without merit. The military pipeline has money until at least some time in July. In addition, legislation can be quickly enacted to enable the Army to borrow money from the Navy and Air Force. Speaker Pelosi is fully aware of all this and refused to rush the Senate bill to the House floor.

The Memorial Day recess will enable conversations to take place among anti-war legislators and advocacy groups on next steps. Stay tuned.

May 15, 2008 stands as a historic day: the House of Representatives voted no-confidence in President Bush’s Iraq War Policy. Iraq war veterans opposed to the war lobbied the House. Their visible presence, in quiet, intense and moving conversation with House members told it all. The anti-War movement stood united in its efforts to support the efforts made by anti-war legislators.

The House used its appropriations power to limit Bush’s unrestrained war policies and set a time limit for troop withdrawal. It took an additional step by ending Iraq war funding. Most House Republicans refused to fund a war they support thereby adding to the no-confidence vote. The House expanded the GI Bill and paid for its expansion by asking rich people to pay an addition half a percent more on their taxes.

This note will discuss the legislation’s provisions, analyze the House votes and discuss why the Bush demagoguery on these issues has no merit.

The House Democratic leadership, operating as a team, listened to its members to structure a way of the House working its will on key issues directly related to the Iraq War. What the leadership structured is a precise use of the power of the purse to choose priorities and set boundaries on the use of our tax dollars by an unaccountable and unrestrained President.

I. The Bill’s Provisions: The House leadership divided the legislation into three parts known as Amendments 1, 2 and 3.

Amendment1: This Amendment provided funds to continue the war until a new President can set new policies for troop withdrawal. This Amendment allowed those opposed to the war to vote no, those who voted yes would not be politically vulnerable by not supporting the troops (mostly marginal Democrats from rural districts that overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2004). Supporters of the war, most House Republicans, were expected to support the legislation. Instead most House Republicans voted present. That is they refused to fund the war they claim to support.

Amendment 2: This Amendment established significant ground rules limiting the President’s authority to wage an unrestrained war. It establishes four significant policies sharply drawing the line with Bush policies.

1. Sets a mandate for withdrawal of troops from Iraq starting 30 days after enactment and to be completed within 18 months. What this policy does is establish a framework for a supportive President to begin a process of orderly troop withdrawal that protects our troops during the withdrawal phase.

2. Rotates the troops by requiring sufficient rest periods of more than a year between the time they are stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan before they resume combat duty. This responds to the many examples of men and women having multiple times of service in combat zones with hardly any real time at home.

3. Sets specific policies barring President Bush from unilaterally binding the next Administration in committing troops to Iraq.

4. Makes the prohibition on torture by US personnel crystal clear.

Amendment 3: The heart of Amendment 3 recognizes the service of our women and men in Afghanistan and

Iraq by expanding veteran’s education for 10 years at an investment of $52 billion dollars. It extends the benefit for those serving in the National Guard who presently do not receive GI Education benefits.  The GI Bill gets paid for by requiring approximately 500,000 taxpayers to have a surtax of 0.5% of couples earning more than $1,000,000 or individuals earning more than $500,000. That small increase will bring in the money to pay for the added costs of educating our veterans.II. Analyzing the House Vote Amendment 1 failed for two reasons: 63% of the Democrats opposed continued funding of the war. The 37% Democratic supporters of this funding mostly came from marginal electoral districts or rural areas. For most of them Bush carried their districts overwhelmingly in 2000 and 2004.Seventy percent of the House Republicans surprised the President by voting present—neither yea nor nay. In their panic they abandoned Bush.  They disrespected their constituents by not giving them their public judgment on the war.

Amendment 2 succeeded with the support of 94% of the House Democrats. It attracted 8 Republicans an increase of 4 in support of a deadline for withdrawal.

Amendment 3 had support from 97% of the House Democrats and 32 Republicans amounting to 17% of the House Republicans.

III. The Politics of It All

As a builder of House coalitions among liberal and moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans (an endangered group), I admire the work of the House Democratic leadership and the relevant committee sub-committee chairs. Ideas from many sources were drawn on including specific suggestions from Council for the Livable World and other anti-war groups.

Critical time was spent with Democratic House members listening to their concerns and structuring the process to enable House members to vote on all key issues. That is why it is a democratic process. Republicans have no cause to complain. In their day as a majority they did not allow key issues to be voted on.

The House Republican leadership and Bush will fire a steady drumbeat accusing the Democrats of abandoning the troops. That’s false.  In using the public funds for withdrawal of the troops the money when appropriated serves to protect the troops. Even if true that funds will run out in mid-June (a very debatable matter), absent any enacted legislation, the Pentagon has acknowledged that money can be borrowed from the Navy and Air force funds. On that matter Congress will not stand in the way.

This vote represents the panic House Republicans have in losing three straight bye elections in rock ribbed Republican House districts. Cheney’s presence in Mississippi campaigning for the defeated Republican adds to the panic. Old Rovian tactics of linking the conservative Democrats to Obama and Pelosi failed. Panic is palpable.

Above all it represents a triumph among House opponents of the Iraq war who recognize this disastrous and costly mistake. A strong majority of House officeholders want to take prompt action to begin to protect our troops, save Iraqi lives and strengthen our security by ending this disaster.

Yes, it’s horrible that a Veterans Administration (VA) psychologist says lets avoid the costs of  compensating PTSD and call it something else (adjustment disorder). She is properly mortified for creating an Orwellian experience.

The real sinners are the President and Vice-President who have created these war policies that kill our young people, wound them physically and emotionally. We owe these young people immeasurably. Keith Olbermann we need you tonight.

That same Bush and Cheney have created a mindset in government that makes Dickens characters look generous. Veterans Secretary Peake don’t just blame the hapless psychologist. Change the policy and attitudes so that we act on what the recent Rand study found: 300,000 US military personnel who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD.

Chairmen Akaka and Fillner get Peake and OMB Director Nussle before your Committee and make them change the polcies so that we recognize PTSD and act on that recognition

I know it’s not fashionable to ever praise Congress or one if its bodies. By a vote of 213-197 the narrow House Democratic majority held firm and ended the President’s warantless surveillance program in approving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That’s a real achievement. The House members that supported the changes deserve our cheers.

Acting as it did on Iraq policy, the House has once more stood up to President Bush’s reckless policies and provided a carefully drawn alternative that protects civil liberties and at the same time protects national security.

Of course presidential vetoes cannot be overridden because House Republican are joined at the hip to the Bush Administration.

Here’s what the House did. It shows that a majority wants something fundamentally different from the Bush Administration:

1. Said no to warantless surveillance.

2. Said no to giving the telephone companies absolute retroactive immunity for their participation in working with the Bush Administration to engage in warantless surveillance.

3.  Insisted that the telephone companies may be sued by those observed. The companies would have to present their case to a federal judge to show why they shouldn’t be sued. The policy says there’s no free ride for the telephone companies.

The House went into a secret session as Bush Administration supporters tried to use the specter of national security as an act of intimidation. Veteran House member David Obey (D-Wis) talked about the “mumbo-jumbo” of these sessions and that “they demonstrate almost total uselessnes.”

House Judiciary Chairman Conyers (D-Mich) asked how can you give “retroactive immunity for something you don’t know what you are giving it for.”

Putting together a majority on national security matters is always demanding. It requires skill and patience. The Administration and House Republicans were determined to thwart the majority. They failed.

Majority Leader Hoyer (D-Md) provided the key leadership that refused to fold to the President’s and Vice-President’s pressures and scare tactics. By not folding, by insisting that immunity should not be provided, by holding numerous meetings, by standing firm on the inside Hoyer showed that a majority can be forged that protects security against terrorists and protects civil liberties at the same time. That’s leadership 

Hats off to House Approproations Committee Chairman Obey (D-Wi), a public servant of passion, committment and one not afraid to stand up to the President and take heat.

Obey put it directly to President Bush by saying on October 2 that the Approproiations Committee will not report out any war supplemental spending bill this year until the President makes far reaching changes in its Iraq War policy.

Obey has demonstrated the power of the congressional veto.

Look at what’s happened in Congress in 2007: a strong Senate majority in September supported US valiant fighting women and men by insisting that they receive adequate downtime between deployments–downtime equal to the time they serve in Iraq. Only a filibuster prevented the majority from acting.

In July the House passed legislation that calls for US troops to start being withdrawn in 120 days and have combat troops out by April 1.

In the spring the Senate narrowly voted to support a date for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

A majority of the Congress has cast votes to withdraw our troops from combat by a date certain and to in effect change our mission.

All Bush can do is say no to Congress. He reminds me of the Soviet Communists always saying nyet at the UN at the height of the Cold War.

Obey has challenged Bush’s exercise of the Imperial Presidency. Obey says yes to supplemntal funding if Bush will rotate the troops, carry out a serious broad scale diplomatic offensive that involves other countries in the region and establishes a firm goal to end US combat involvement in Iraq.

A majority of Congress wants to find a practical way to end our military combat and pursue our help  for refugees and people who have helped the US. The President, anyway it’s dressed up says, no to real change. Obey rightly says to the President change the Iraq policy or no more money to carry out the status quo.

Let’s savor what has happened. Obey has given the anti-Iraq war side an upper hand in dealing with the President!

Actions in Congress on the first week back from the July 4th recess advanced  the all out debate on Iraq that will take place in September. Each side is preparing “to go to the mattresses” as it works to win over doubters.

To prepare for the critical effort the Democratic Congressional leadership, united under Speaker Pelosi and Majority leader Reid, insisted on taking action in July.

The House has passed a free standing bill on July 12 led by Armed Services Chairman Skelton (D-Mo) that calls for troops to start being withdrawn in 120 days and combat troops out by April 1. 96% of House Democrats supported the legislation. Only 4 Republicans were willing to defy their leadership.

Similar legislation is being filibustered by Senate Republicans. This legislation, initiated by Senators Levin (D-Mi) and Reed (D-RI), now has bi-partisan co-sponsorship under Senator Hagel’s (R-Nebr) leadrship.

What these actions do is establish near Democratic unanimity on a prescribed course of active and prudent redeployment of troops in Iraq,  increase pressure on House and Senate Republicans to match their doubts with their votes and pressure the President to not ignore Congress’s instututional actions to end the war.

Among anti-war activists there is understandable frustration that the war has not ended. Each day American and Iraq lives are lost, people are maimed and their lives are forever changed. We do not begin to know the emotional and psychological trauma difficulties people are facing.

What stands out is that the strategy of pushing as far as Congress can get has begun to show results. The July report—something the President did not want to make but had to under law– is dominated by what the Wall St. Journal states: the “report concluded the Iraqi government had failed to meet the key political and security benchmarks Mr. Bush had initially used to justify the recent ’surge’ of new U.S. forces into Iraq…”

War opponents have now framed the issue in three significant ways: our policy has strengthend and diversified Al Queda capability as a result of what the U.S. has done in Iraq; it has weakened the U.S. ability to influence other security threats including Iran’s; it has damaged the fabric of family life for so many military families, because of the continuing and exhausting deployment of armed forces including the National Guard. 

The unanswered question is will Republican critics–Senators Lugar (Ind), Warner (Va), Voinovich (Ohio)and Domenici (NM)– join Republicans Hagel (Nebr), Smith (Ore) and Snowe (Me) on effective legislation that mandates a changed policy.

Congress is now positioned to fight the next battle for ending the Iraq War. Institutionally Congress voted to  bring the troops home with an orderly troop deployment by March 2008. It has refused President Bush his strongest wish by not giving the President a blank check to do whatever he wanted to do. The President’s veto prevented the troop deployment proviso from becoming law. His continued veto assertions failed to stop the Congressional determination to bring an end to our military troops staying in Iraq.

War opponents have made it clear that the war issue will be joined frontally in September. Built into the legislation is a requirement for the House to vote after receiving a report from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The House  will have to say yes or no on continuing the war. Action will be forced in the Senate.

For a thoughtful analysis of what’s happened so far in the Congress see John Isaacs’ The Political War Over the Iraq War in www.rightweb.com.

The choice is between an orderly withdrawal of troops or continuing the death of American troops and Iraqis. The American people know we have created a mess with our ill fated policies. Our policies have been so harmful that even an orderly withdrawal is unlikely to be pain free.

To accomplish a phased withdrawal presents the anti-war movement with its greatest political challenge. It has to get beyond narrow majorities. It must first convince Senate Democrats from thinly populated states, and rural House disticts, to shift their position by supporting withdrawal. Think of the spine of the country for the Senate Democrats: Bingaman (NM), Conrad and Dorgan (ND), Baucus and Tester (Mont), Ben Nelson (Nebr), McCaskill (Mo),  Salazar (Colo), add to it Bayh (Ind) and Castle (Del) and Southern Democrats Pryor and Lincoln (Ark), Landrieu (La) and Bill Nelson (Fla). Two coal state Senators need to change: Rockefeller (WVa) and Casey (Pa).

Three Democratic Senators present a special case for anti-war advocates: Levin (Mich), Reed (RI) opposed the original resolution authorizing war, and newly elected Webb (Va) have all been resolute and active in their opposition to the war but so far have not been prepared to support withdrawal legislation. Their credentials remain intact. The way to work with these Senators is to reason and discuss with them, hear what their concerns are and work to address them. Pitting them as the opposition–as Daily Kos has done with Levin– attacks those with views close to the anti-war position and lets Republicans off the hook. That behavior destroys opposition to the Iraq War rather than builds it. These Senators, too, must hear from their constituents especially from those who have served, and their family members. They will provide powerful voices for change.

Republicans have lots to learn. Their hardest lesson is that progress in Iraq cannot be defined militarily alone, no matter what gloss is put on it by Bush, Cheney and the Generals. One source of encouragement is that Alexander (R-Tenn) is leading a bi-partisan amendment to adopt the Baker-Hamilton (B-H) report as a matter of law to the Defense Authorization bill.  B-H has tough benchmarks and more importantly calls for the troops to withdraw in an orderly way by a date certain. If adopted, it sets the stage for Republicans to pull what Goldwater did to Nixon: walk down Pennsylvania Ave to tell the President that they are cutting their umbilical cord to him.

This is serious politics. Look at what ABC news said after Memorial Day: ”On Iraq, Bush’s victory on war funding masks an uncomfortable political reality for the President: the war is growing more unpopular by the day, and all signs point to a Septemeber date by which the GOP will be fed up.” As Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley said a century ago, “politics ain’t bean bag.”

Here is my comment on M.J. Rosenberg’s piece “Moving Israel to Alaska“:

Cheers for MJ Rosenberg’s thoughtful piece.
As a critic of the Israeli settlement policy, I regret that the focus on the West Bank is disproportionate to a full picture of Israel today–witness the revival of modern Hebrew, to be sure, but also look at Israel’s vigorous and vibrant press–English and Hebrew language; its strong democratic institutions with all of its imperfections and with people constantly trying to reform them and end the atrocious gaps between Jewish Israeli and Arab Israelis and Jews living in poverty with their sisters and brothers. Something is wonderfully right about a country where its eloquent voices and moral leaders include the great novelists and moral leaders, who in fact are opinion leaders: David Grossman, Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and others.
Those of us who criticize the Israeli settlement policies, and that must continue until they are ended, along with Israel’s often reluctant ways to go the extra step for a secure peace, have a responsibility to challenge those who see Israel as a “pariah” state with outlaw qualities, who lack empathy for people killed in Israel proper i.e. behind the Green Line by suicide bombers. Ours is a tough road to hoe but we must stand up to right wing Jews who disrespect the legitimate claims of Palestinians to their own state (not the right of return) and left wingers who when scratched are not committed to a free and secure Israel, one that is Jewish, democratic and pluralist ehnically and religously. David Cohen

Here is my comment on M.J. Rosenberg’s “Gore Running! (This Week’s TIME Cover Story)“:

Gore is appearing May 29 at Lisner Auditorium on the George Washington University campus to discuss his new book, Assualt on Reason. Politic and Prose, a leading nat’l independent book store is hosting the event. (Full disclosure: my wife Carla Cohen is the founder and an owner.) It’s a sell out crowd, meaning at least 2,000 people.
Of course, Nader is a spoiler who has the current Supreme Court as one of his legacies–Roberts and Alito. Of course the Court cheated Gore the winner out of the election. But Gore ran an inept campaign that made a run away election close. His refusal to use Bill Clinton effectively, and his arrogance, cost him Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia. He bears significant responsibility for the 8 years of Bush.
Gore, if he is to run, has to show far beyond any doubts why he’d wage an effective campaign. Does he know who he is? Is he still a self-righteous person who cannot reflect on his earlier mistakes? Right now An Inconvenient Truth and The Assault on Reason–worthy books with important ideas and messages– do not make Gore a worthy replacement for any of the top tier candidates and the Obama spark demonstrates a quest for something different from what Gore has shown politically.
David Cohen

The Senate action on Iraq gives heart to opponents of the Iraq War. Sixty votes were needed to proceed for a debate. Yes, I know the Feingold (D-Wis)-Reid (D-Nev) amendment went down 67-29. The Warner (R-Va)Amendment failed 52-44, falling 8 votes short of 60.

The Feingold proviso essentially would have pulled our troops out of Iraq by March 2008 except for a limited range of military operations. But combat fighting would end and troops would begin to be pulled out even earlier.

The Warner proviso tied economic aid to Iraq to the Iraq government  making progress on disarming militias and equitably distributing oil revenues. It gave the President the right of waiving the requirements. It also said if a majority of the Iraq parliament passes legislation wishing us to withdraw  military forces we would.

 What we learn from these two votes has been well put by Noam Levey the Los Angeles Times reporter. Both “votes illustrated Congress’ dramatic response to public dismay with the war.” A majority of Senate Democrats for the first time supported Feingold including the Senate’s top Democrats. The Warner vote showed that a majority of Senate Republicans for the first time are ready to place conditions on Bush’s war policy.

A few hours ago Bush told Pelosi and Reid that he would not accept timetables of any kind on the Iraq war including the Republican bench marks timeline. The President wants a blank check. Once again the Congress faces the challenge of sending legislation to the President that supports the troops, and marks Congress’s determination to end the war in a responsible way rather than continue the irresponsible Bush policy.