Monday, May 24, 2010

Gary Swing - Green Party - CO -1

The Coalition Against War Spending has issued a call against more war funding and asked for support for this statement.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans over $1 trillion in direct costs, and over $3 trillion altogether.

At a time when our national debt exceeds $13 trillion, we can no longer afford these wars.

It's time for Congress to reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely home.

There is a list of Congresspeople and candidates who have endorsed this position. Go look to see if there's one in your district.

There is in mine ... CO -1, Denver, CO
Gary Swing, Green Party endorsed with this statement.
"I endorse your statement, though I would change the word 'our' to 'American' or 'U.S.' I don't have any troops. If I did, they certainly wouldn't be killing the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. I support an end to all foreign wars, a permanent ban on the stationing or deployment of U.S. troops outside of U.S. territory, closure of all overseas bases, prosecution of American war criminals, and transition to non-offensive national defense of U.S. territory."

The Democratic incumbent for this district, Dianne DeGette has not endorsed. And she has not opposed funding for the Afghan war. When back in her very liberal district, she talks like she opposes these wars. But, she never does anything about it. And when the war funding needs a vote, she's been a ready vote for the Democratic leadership in favor of escalating the Afghan war. She certainly wouldn't endorse this statement, and she'd never really oppose war funding and mean it and stick with it.

This is her statement on the latest 'New Afghanistan policy' from her congressional website.
“I am pleased that President Obama has laid out a clear strategy to end the war in Afghanistan. It is in our national security interest to stabilize the country and prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan as a base for terrorist activity. Accelerating the recruitment and training of Afghan security forces will allow Kabul to take control and responsibility for its own security more quickly. Unfortunately, these goals were long-delayed when the previous Administration was distracted by a war in Iraq.

“Before I agree to support funding the President’s increased troop levels in the 2011 budget, I will closely examine the efficacy of his plan to ensure that it is stabilizing Afghanistan, and preparing the country to defend itself.”

She tries to talk anti-war, but the key to the statement is her support for the war in Afghanistan and more war funding. Only conditioned by her review to make sure that we are efficiently killing the people of Afghanistan.

This picture probably looks like a lot of other districts. A Democrat faux-liberal that talks lefty but is really a sure vote for war money when they need it. But there are usually other names on the ballot that might take a different position. If people really want the wars to end, its time to abandon the fake-Democrats who won't end them, and to instead vote for the candidates that say they really will go to Congress and vote to end these wars.

This is the key question. The writers of the Constitution put the power of the purse in the hands of Congress and particularly the House of Representatives. If someone asked them today how to end these wars, they would simply point out that they gave the Congress the power to end any such war by making sure that the Congress had control of the money.

Do you want a vote for more war money in Congress? Or do you want a vote for no more war money in Congress? The choice is likely clearly before you on the fall ballot. And if it isn't, maybe its time to get a campaign started where you live and make sure there is a solid vote against the war on the ballot in every district in this country.

No comments: