Written by: Aaron M. Watkins
President George W. Bush announced Tuesday that he was to veto a bill allocating federal funds for stem cell research. This being the third bill passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate that Bush has vetoed, it comes a year after an almost identical bill was considered.
The Senate just barely lacks the two thirds majority to contest Bush's veto, but the House is well under the two thirds majority meaning the veto is not likely to be overridden.
As usual, Bush makes little to no sense when citing his reasons behind the veto. In a message to the House of Representatives, released Tuesday, June 19, 2007 on the White House's website, Bush writes, "Under the policy I announced 5 years ago, my Administration became the first to make Federal funds available for this research, but only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed."
Under the bills proposal, the embryos that would be used for research would already be in line to be destroyed, and merely using the cells after the embryo had been destroyed does nothing to "preserve human life and dignity" as Bush claims.
Bush argues that stem cell research promotes the destruction of human life (the embryo), ignoring the fact that the embryos that would be used for research are going to be destroyed anyway. It makes the most sense to make further use of embryos destined for destruction, as current research shows that stem cells could be vital in treating a wide range of serious, life threatening ailments.
In fact, stem cell research would allow for the preservation of human life and dignity that Bush claims he is preserving with his veto of the bill. Allowing for the advancement in medial care that stem cell research would certainly lead to, would without a doubt, improve the quality of life for ailing human beings, and ease the minds of those at risk for such ailments that could be treated or cured through stem cell research.
The sensitivity of this subject is understandable, as it tends to foster moral questions, but the benefits of such research would far out weigh any issues with morality. It is indeed with a notion of morality that such research ought to be pursued. Saving lives and improving human existence is a notion of compassion in tune with morality.
Bush's opposition to bill H.R. 810 stems (no pun intended) from his religious beliefs as a Christian, and should not be the measure by which such research is determined to be permissible or not. A separation of church and state should extend into the policies of American government, as the religious beliefs of one man should not determine the permissibility or funding of such research that would affect thousands if not millions of people (many in life or death situations).
As usual, however, Bush is not considering the effect such a bill would have on the people. As usual, he chooses to think only of himself and what HE thinks is right. As he has consistently demonstrated to the people, Bush has absolutely no sense of what is right; so what makes anyone think he is right about this?
Friday, June 22, 2007
Friday, June 8, 2007
On An Organic Social Construct In A Technolgical Civilization
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins
As we are all aware, the age in which we live requires that each and every citizen be an informed citizen, and dare I say a proactive citizen. The shady policies and actions of the American government created the environment under which the peace movement began, and certain peace orgainizations were formed. The creation of such an organization is the indicator that there is a core group of concerned citizens who choose to remain informed, proactive, and involved in the future of our country. As such a citizen, I, Aaron M. Watkins, born during the Reagan-era, and having come of age under an environment reminiscent of a dictatorship with the noose of citizen slavery ever tightening around the throat of America, have come to the understanding that it is up to us, the citizens, to keep in check the powers that be. If left to its own devices, the current administration would undoubtedly evolve into a totalitarian regime, whereby the citizens of this country would be stripped of every freedom and liberty set forth by the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution in fact has become so irrelevant in the minds of the Bush administration that George W. Bush actually referred to the Constitution of the United States (the basis of every American freedom, mind you) as “a goddamn piece of paper”. This is the mindset under which the current leaders of this country conduct the affairs that determine the fate of the world. It goes without saying that the Founding Fathers of this country would defend to the death the ideology of the current administration. The extraordinary men who founded this country risked their own freedoms and in fact their very lives for the ideals contained within the Constitution, and would surely take exception to its reference as “a goddamn piece of paper”.
As an informed, proactive human being, it is with an obligatory attitude that I pursue educating the public at large; and I encourage others to do the same. However, I look upon the social landscape of America, wondering how we have gotten to such a point that nobody seems to care about what is happening, or what will happen if the current course remains. With the American community eroding (or at least evolving) it is important for the proactive citizen to retain personable communication to an ever-increasingly isolated public so that the informed maintain a dialogue with the not-so-informed. When I say an isolated public I don’t necessarily mean isolated from the goings on of society. Today’s technology allows for anyone (save they be willing) to know about any event happening anywhere in the world at any time. The problem is that not every avenue of obtaining information contains objective reporting, with informing the public of the truth as its number one priority. When the priority of a media entity becomes profit over accurate information, anything coming from that source becomes tainted with profit prioritized propaganda. Ideally, each and every citizen should care whether they were being indoctrinated with truth, and would take the necessary steps to wade through the murk of misinformation using the ever-expanding technologies at our disposal as a tool for the gathering of information. However, the trade off that inevitably occurs with increased access to, and use of technology seems to be the loss of an organic social construct that has historically been necessary for the creation and implementation of a social movement. With this in mind, we need to approach our mission creatively, remaining aware of the fact that the social landscape of America is ever-evolving into a condition of what has been dubbed by Polish-British sociologist, Zygmunt Bauman, “liquid modernity”. Bauman defines liquid modernity as “the condition of a society that lacks a clear sense of orientation”; almost exactly defining American society as it exists today. While technology has played a major role in alienating people from one another, and in the evolution of liquid modernity, it can paradoxically be the very tool by which American society can re-solidify, and regain a sense of direction and collective orientation. Hypothetically, what peace organizations can do is to use this technology to partner with alternative media sources and social networks, cementing a relationship between the proactive citizen, its respective peace organization, alternative media sources, and other proactive citizens, thereby creating an organic social construct with clearly defined goals, containing built-in alternative media sources necessary for an organic society to remained accurately informed. Let us imagine for a moment how such an idea would work. The peace organization would be the center of the network, defining goals, connecting people, staging events, etc. Next, imagine a social network whereby each person is responsible for maintaining a dialogue with five different people in the network. Each person would maintain daily contact with their respective five people, sharing everything from new ideas to daily news. If structured like this, information would reach every person in the social network within one day organically. What I mean by organically is that the information would be passed along person to person, and not by automated means.
This is, of course, just an idealistic notion but it is at least a start. All great movements and revolutions start with just that; an idealistic notion that grows into a tangible movement involving people and whole communities. This country is in desperate need of change, and that change (just as a flame begins with a spark) begins with a notion, and I indeed have a notion. I have a notion (perhaps naively) that change is just around the corner; that the people will soon wake up and see what is being done to them. All that is required for change in this country is an informed public, willing to come together to stand up against oppression, to speak out against totalitarianism, and for God’s sake, to get out there and to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
As we are all aware, the age in which we live requires that each and every citizen be an informed citizen, and dare I say a proactive citizen. The shady policies and actions of the American government created the environment under which the peace movement began, and certain peace orgainizations were formed. The creation of such an organization is the indicator that there is a core group of concerned citizens who choose to remain informed, proactive, and involved in the future of our country. As such a citizen, I, Aaron M. Watkins, born during the Reagan-era, and having come of age under an environment reminiscent of a dictatorship with the noose of citizen slavery ever tightening around the throat of America, have come to the understanding that it is up to us, the citizens, to keep in check the powers that be. If left to its own devices, the current administration would undoubtedly evolve into a totalitarian regime, whereby the citizens of this country would be stripped of every freedom and liberty set forth by the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution in fact has become so irrelevant in the minds of the Bush administration that George W. Bush actually referred to the Constitution of the United States (the basis of every American freedom, mind you) as “a goddamn piece of paper”. This is the mindset under which the current leaders of this country conduct the affairs that determine the fate of the world. It goes without saying that the Founding Fathers of this country would defend to the death the ideology of the current administration. The extraordinary men who founded this country risked their own freedoms and in fact their very lives for the ideals contained within the Constitution, and would surely take exception to its reference as “a goddamn piece of paper”.
As an informed, proactive human being, it is with an obligatory attitude that I pursue educating the public at large; and I encourage others to do the same. However, I look upon the social landscape of America, wondering how we have gotten to such a point that nobody seems to care about what is happening, or what will happen if the current course remains. With the American community eroding (or at least evolving) it is important for the proactive citizen to retain personable communication to an ever-increasingly isolated public so that the informed maintain a dialogue with the not-so-informed. When I say an isolated public I don’t necessarily mean isolated from the goings on of society. Today’s technology allows for anyone (save they be willing) to know about any event happening anywhere in the world at any time. The problem is that not every avenue of obtaining information contains objective reporting, with informing the public of the truth as its number one priority. When the priority of a media entity becomes profit over accurate information, anything coming from that source becomes tainted with profit prioritized propaganda. Ideally, each and every citizen should care whether they were being indoctrinated with truth, and would take the necessary steps to wade through the murk of misinformation using the ever-expanding technologies at our disposal as a tool for the gathering of information. However, the trade off that inevitably occurs with increased access to, and use of technology seems to be the loss of an organic social construct that has historically been necessary for the creation and implementation of a social movement. With this in mind, we need to approach our mission creatively, remaining aware of the fact that the social landscape of America is ever-evolving into a condition of what has been dubbed by Polish-British sociologist, Zygmunt Bauman, “liquid modernity”. Bauman defines liquid modernity as “the condition of a society that lacks a clear sense of orientation”; almost exactly defining American society as it exists today. While technology has played a major role in alienating people from one another, and in the evolution of liquid modernity, it can paradoxically be the very tool by which American society can re-solidify, and regain a sense of direction and collective orientation. Hypothetically, what peace organizations can do is to use this technology to partner with alternative media sources and social networks, cementing a relationship between the proactive citizen, its respective peace organization, alternative media sources, and other proactive citizens, thereby creating an organic social construct with clearly defined goals, containing built-in alternative media sources necessary for an organic society to remained accurately informed. Let us imagine for a moment how such an idea would work. The peace organization would be the center of the network, defining goals, connecting people, staging events, etc. Next, imagine a social network whereby each person is responsible for maintaining a dialogue with five different people in the network. Each person would maintain daily contact with their respective five people, sharing everything from new ideas to daily news. If structured like this, information would reach every person in the social network within one day organically. What I mean by organically is that the information would be passed along person to person, and not by automated means.
This is, of course, just an idealistic notion but it is at least a start. All great movements and revolutions start with just that; an idealistic notion that grows into a tangible movement involving people and whole communities. This country is in desperate need of change, and that change (just as a flame begins with a spark) begins with a notion, and I indeed have a notion. I have a notion (perhaps naively) that change is just around the corner; that the people will soon wake up and see what is being done to them. All that is required for change in this country is an informed public, willing to come together to stand up against oppression, to speak out against totalitarianism, and for God’s sake, to get out there and to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Congress Blinks In Stare-Down Over Timetable
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins
I wrote an article called "Iraq Spending Bill: Creating Necessary Changes" mere days ago outlining some of the options congress had for the troop withdrawal stipulation in the Iraq Spending Bill.
However I was adamant that Congress NOT negotiate and NOT compromise with the White House over the articles containing the timeline for troop withdrawal.
I felt that Congress needed to continue sending bill after bill containing timelines for troop withdrawal, and if those bills were vetoed by the President it would continue to set precedents; precedents saying that George W. Bush is ignoring the will of the people and defying Congress, and is vetoing a bill in the face of American will.
However, my worst fear has now been realized. Congress folded like a cheap tent and has removed the articles containing a timeline for troop withdrawal.
I had faith that FINALLY, a group of people (Congress) were going to stand up to the President and not back down until our troops were coming home, with a solution to the power vacuum outlined, and a clear proposal for a diplomatic solution to the problems in Iraq (and the entire Middle East for that matter).
Instead Congress bowed down to Bush and the White House and has decided to do the current administration's bidding. No one is standing up and saying "what the hell is going on here”! We should be in the streets over this, not sitting on our asses waiting for someone else to do something about it.
We thought finally something was going to get done about creating a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. The Democrats were in a position to make this happen, or to at least continue setting precedents by sending bills with strict articles containing timetables.
When Bush vetoes a bill that has passed in both houses of Congress, it sets a precedent. It makes official the will of the people, and the denial of such by the President, and draws the line in the sand.
The Democrats have completely folded (I suppose it was naive of me to expect that they wouldn't) and have essentially written Bush the "blank check" that they so adamantly protested.
Instead of setting a precedent in favor of ending the war, Congress has now set a precedent to the contrary. They have essentially said that ending the war is not worth the effort. They have tried to distract the American people by touting the $20 billion worth of pork projects they have included in the Iraq Spending Bill like it is some sort of worthy substitute for a troop withdrawal timetable.
The Democrats have also conspicuously attached an increase in the minimum wage to the Iraq Spending Bill. The minimum wage hasn’t been raised in over a decade, and to attach it to the Iraq Spending Bill is quite suspicious.
This is an obvious attempt by the Democrats to distract the American people from the removal of the troop withdrawal timetable with frivolous articles that have nothing to do with Iraq spending. While an increase in the federal minimun wage is definately a positive for the American people, the timing of it's inclusion, however, is quite suspicious indeed.
I, for one, am not distracted by all these bells and whistles, and see right through the charade, and I hope you do as well. I realize now that nobody in a position to do so wants to end this pointless, illegal war; and why would they? Members of both parties stand to make (or continue making rather) money off the occupation of Iraq.
The problem is not partisan disagreement as they would have you and I believe. On the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats may battle like bitter enemies, but I guarantee you, behind closed doors they’ll agree that making money is priority numero uno. And guess who is going to foot the bill? WAKE UP AMERICA!
I wrote an article called "Iraq Spending Bill: Creating Necessary Changes" mere days ago outlining some of the options congress had for the troop withdrawal stipulation in the Iraq Spending Bill.
However I was adamant that Congress NOT negotiate and NOT compromise with the White House over the articles containing the timeline for troop withdrawal.
I felt that Congress needed to continue sending bill after bill containing timelines for troop withdrawal, and if those bills were vetoed by the President it would continue to set precedents; precedents saying that George W. Bush is ignoring the will of the people and defying Congress, and is vetoing a bill in the face of American will.
However, my worst fear has now been realized. Congress folded like a cheap tent and has removed the articles containing a timeline for troop withdrawal.
I had faith that FINALLY, a group of people (Congress) were going to stand up to the President and not back down until our troops were coming home, with a solution to the power vacuum outlined, and a clear proposal for a diplomatic solution to the problems in Iraq (and the entire Middle East for that matter).
Instead Congress bowed down to Bush and the White House and has decided to do the current administration's bidding. No one is standing up and saying "what the hell is going on here”! We should be in the streets over this, not sitting on our asses waiting for someone else to do something about it.
We thought finally something was going to get done about creating a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. The Democrats were in a position to make this happen, or to at least continue setting precedents by sending bills with strict articles containing timetables.
When Bush vetoes a bill that has passed in both houses of Congress, it sets a precedent. It makes official the will of the people, and the denial of such by the President, and draws the line in the sand.
The Democrats have completely folded (I suppose it was naive of me to expect that they wouldn't) and have essentially written Bush the "blank check" that they so adamantly protested.
Instead of setting a precedent in favor of ending the war, Congress has now set a precedent to the contrary. They have essentially said that ending the war is not worth the effort. They have tried to distract the American people by touting the $20 billion worth of pork projects they have included in the Iraq Spending Bill like it is some sort of worthy substitute for a troop withdrawal timetable.
The Democrats have also conspicuously attached an increase in the minimum wage to the Iraq Spending Bill. The minimum wage hasn’t been raised in over a decade, and to attach it to the Iraq Spending Bill is quite suspicious.
This is an obvious attempt by the Democrats to distract the American people from the removal of the troop withdrawal timetable with frivolous articles that have nothing to do with Iraq spending. While an increase in the federal minimun wage is definately a positive for the American people, the timing of it's inclusion, however, is quite suspicious indeed.
I, for one, am not distracted by all these bells and whistles, and see right through the charade, and I hope you do as well. I realize now that nobody in a position to do so wants to end this pointless, illegal war; and why would they? Members of both parties stand to make (or continue making rather) money off the occupation of Iraq.
The problem is not partisan disagreement as they would have you and I believe. On the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats may battle like bitter enemies, but I guarantee you, behind closed doors they’ll agree that making money is priority numero uno. And guess who is going to foot the bill? WAKE UP AMERICA!
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Iraq Spending Bill: Necessary Changes
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins
It has been over a week now since President George W. Bush vetoed the proposed Iraq spending bill. As we know, the bill passed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, an obvious indicator that the majority of the American people are fed up with the War in Iraq; yet the incumbent insists on ignoring the will of the people, and even defying our own Congress.
It has been over a week now since President George W. Bush vetoed the proposed Iraq spending bill. As we know, the bill passed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, an obvious indicator that the majority of the American people are fed up with the War in Iraq; yet the incumbent insists on ignoring the will of the people, and even defying our own Congress.
Bush claimed that the $124 billion dollar bill contained too many binding issues, and that he could not “in good conscience”, sign such a bill into law. The omission of a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq (a never ending war) is the only way that Bush will accept a proposed war spending bill; meaning that he would rather our troops remain under-funded and under-equipped just to keep them there in Iraq.
The fact that Congress even sent the bill to the desk of the President amidst his adamancy of a veto has now set a precedent. It says that the citizens of America and the Congress representing the people are determined to end this illegal war in the face of the President’s determination to the contrary.
Now that the precedent has been set, Congress needs not to compromise in the Bush administrations favor, but it needs to create, and send to the Presidents desk, a new spending bill containing articles with an even stricter timetable using the power of the purse for the allocation of funds not for continued war, but to fund America’s withdrawal from Iraq.
Compromise will not produce the necessary results for a lasting peace so if the President continues to veto stipulated spending bills, then Congress needs to continue to set precedent after precedent by sending bill after bill to the Presidents desk; we need to make a larger issue out of this.
“Since Democrats did not appear to have enough votes to muster a two-thirds majority in Congress to override the veto, compromise talks between them and the White House were expected to take place”( http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050107Z.shtml ).
The Democrats are going to try and compromise with the White House on the bill that President Bush referred to as the “Iraq Withdrawal” bill. In fact the bill that was vetoed wasn’t an Iraq Withdrawal bill as it was dubbed by corporate media at the behest of the White House. The bill that was vetoed was the Iraq Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill; the issue of Iraq withdrawal was simply an article added by Congress as a stipulation to the allocation of the $124 billion contained in the spending bill.
Instead of trying to compromise with the White House, Congress needs to maintain its position on troop withdrawal, and send another bill to the Presidents desk. If he were to veto that one, it would just set another precedent, this one even more significant than the first as it would further set the standard that peace is what the people want.
What most people don’t know (as the media intentionally didn’t report it) is that there are other proposed articles for the spending bill sitting on the shelf, created by senators that were largely ignored by Republicans and Bush constituents, and were never put to a vote.
Considering that President Bush vetoed the Iraq Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, a new bill needs to be drawn up by Congress. A president, who is audacious enough to deny the will of the people and defy Congress, does not possess the rational to be compromised with. New spending bills are needed, and they must contain even stricter stipulations than the first.
Senator Russ Feingold composed numerous memos outlining his plan to end the war in Iraq. The memo’s contained what would have essentially been an article that would have been added to the spending bill. What follows are the memo’s composed by Senator Russ Feingold including the articles that he proposed. These articles for troop withdrawal are still relevant to the debate raging in Washington over the war in Iraq, and are just one of many existing proposals to solve the problem that America has gotten itself into.
APRIL 10, 2007, STATEMENT FROM SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD
FEINGOLD INTRODUCES BILL TO END U.S. MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ
Senate Majority Leader Reid Cosponsors Legislation Forcing President to Safely Redeploy Troops by March 31, 2008
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation today to effectively end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. The bill, supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill passed by the Senate. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008. In addition to Reid, the bill is cosponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). If the President vetoes the emergency supplemental spending bill, Reid has said he will work to ensure Feingold’s bill gets a vote in the Senate before Memorial Day.
“The President says he will veto legislation already passed by the Senate that both funds the troops and responds to Americans’ demands for an end to the Iraq war,” Feingold said. “Since the President refuses to change his failed Iraq policy, that responsibility falls on Congress. By setting a date after which funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy will end, we can give the President the time and funding he needs to safely redeploy our troops so we can refocus on the global terrorist networks that threaten the lives of Americans.”
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
__________________
APRIL 2, 2007, STATEMENT FROM SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ
Washington D.C. - U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.
“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”
“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
__________________
JANUARY 2007 STATEMENT FROM FEINGOLD
Legislation Would Use Congress’s Power of the Purse to Redeploy Most U.S. Troops Out of Iraq in Six Months
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today introduced the Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007. Feingold’s bill uses Congress’s power of the purse to force the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by prohibiting funds for continued operations six months after enactment. Feingold’s legislation allows for specific operations to continue in Iraq beyond six months, including counter-terrorism efforts, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training of Iraqi security forces. The six-month timeframe provides the President with adequate time to safely redeploy the troops from Iraq.
“By passing my legislation, Congress can respond to the will of the American people and force the President to safely bring our forces out of Iraq,” Feingold said. “With the President set on pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power -- it’s because it doesn’t have the will.”
Feingold’s bill is the latest effort in his long record of opposing the President’s flawed Iraq policy. In August 2005, Feingold, who opposed the authorization to use force in Iraq, became the first Senator to propose a timeline to bring an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Yesterday, Feingold chaired a full Judiciary Committee hearing where a diverse panel of constitutional scholars testified that Congress does indeed have the power to end a war.
“From the beginning, this war has been a mistake, and the policies that have carried it out have been a failure,” Feingold said. “Congress must not allow the President to continue a war that has already come at such a terrible cost. We have the constitutional authority and the moral responsibility to end our involvement in Iraq so we can refocus on those who attacked us on 9/11.”
FACT SHEET: IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2007
“…Congress can, and has, used the power of the purse to restrict presidential war power. If members of Congress are worried about American troops fighting for their lives in a futile war, those lives are not protected by voting for continued funding. The proper and responsible action is to terminate appropriations and bring the troops home.”
-Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library of Congress, in his book “Presidential War Power.”
Feingold’s legislation:
Prohibits the use of funds for continued deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq after six months of enactment. In other words, the President would have to redeploy troops safely by that date.Requires the Administration to report to Congress, within 60 days of enactment, a strategy for safely redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq within the six months prior to the fund termination date.Provides specific exceptions to the prohibition for:Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations in Iraq.Allowing a limited number of U.S. forces to conduct specific training for Iraqi security services.Providing security for U.S. infrastructure and civilian personnel.Does not prohibit funds for any department or agency of the Government of the United States to carry out political, economic, or general reconstruction activities in Iraq.Does not prevent any U.S. troops from receiving salaries, equipment, training and other resources.
APRIL 10, 2007, STATEMENT FROM SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD
FEINGOLD INTRODUCES BILL TO END U.S. MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ
Senate Majority Leader Reid Cosponsors Legislation Forcing President to Safely Redeploy Troops by March 31, 2008
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation today to effectively end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. The bill, supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill passed by the Senate. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008. In addition to Reid, the bill is cosponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). If the President vetoes the emergency supplemental spending bill, Reid has said he will work to ensure Feingold’s bill gets a vote in the Senate before Memorial Day.
“The President says he will veto legislation already passed by the Senate that both funds the troops and responds to Americans’ demands for an end to the Iraq war,” Feingold said. “Since the President refuses to change his failed Iraq policy, that responsibility falls on Congress. By setting a date after which funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy will end, we can give the President the time and funding he needs to safely redeploy our troops so we can refocus on the global terrorist networks that threaten the lives of Americans.”
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
__________________
APRIL 2, 2007, STATEMENT FROM SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ
Washington D.C. - U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.
“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”
“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
__________________
JANUARY 2007 STATEMENT FROM FEINGOLD
Legislation Would Use Congress’s Power of the Purse to Redeploy Most U.S. Troops Out of Iraq in Six Months
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today introduced the Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007. Feingold’s bill uses Congress’s power of the purse to force the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by prohibiting funds for continued operations six months after enactment. Feingold’s legislation allows for specific operations to continue in Iraq beyond six months, including counter-terrorism efforts, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training of Iraqi security forces. The six-month timeframe provides the President with adequate time to safely redeploy the troops from Iraq.
“By passing my legislation, Congress can respond to the will of the American people and force the President to safely bring our forces out of Iraq,” Feingold said. “With the President set on pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power -- it’s because it doesn’t have the will.”
Feingold’s bill is the latest effort in his long record of opposing the President’s flawed Iraq policy. In August 2005, Feingold, who opposed the authorization to use force in Iraq, became the first Senator to propose a timeline to bring an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Yesterday, Feingold chaired a full Judiciary Committee hearing where a diverse panel of constitutional scholars testified that Congress does indeed have the power to end a war.
“From the beginning, this war has been a mistake, and the policies that have carried it out have been a failure,” Feingold said. “Congress must not allow the President to continue a war that has already come at such a terrible cost. We have the constitutional authority and the moral responsibility to end our involvement in Iraq so we can refocus on those who attacked us on 9/11.”
FACT SHEET: IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2007
“…Congress can, and has, used the power of the purse to restrict presidential war power. If members of Congress are worried about American troops fighting for their lives in a futile war, those lives are not protected by voting for continued funding. The proper and responsible action is to terminate appropriations and bring the troops home.”
-Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library of Congress, in his book “Presidential War Power.”
Feingold’s legislation:
Prohibits the use of funds for continued deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to the Republic of Iraq after six months of enactment. In other words, the President would have to redeploy troops safely by that date.Requires the Administration to report to Congress, within 60 days of enactment, a strategy for safely redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq within the six months prior to the fund termination date.Provides specific exceptions to the prohibition for:Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations in Iraq.Allowing a limited number of U.S. forces to conduct specific training for Iraqi security services.Providing security for U.S. infrastructure and civilian personnel.Does not prohibit funds for any department or agency of the Government of the United States to carry out political, economic, or general reconstruction activities in Iraq.Does not prevent any U.S. troops from receiving salaries, equipment, training and other resources.
Friday, May 11, 2007
America's Dialogue: platform for change
Written by: Aaron M. Watkins
(This is the incomplete literature for a lecture I am giving in June for the Arkansas Coalition for Peace and Justice.)
What kind of America and what kind of world do we want to see? What are our priorities as a nation and a people?
It has become necessary for the citizens of the U.S. to take back this country. The marriage of corporate interest and the American government has gone unchecked for far too long now. As far back as 1946, almost a year to the day after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, columnist Norman Cousins wrote that in order to maintain a reasonable amount of safety in this new nuclear age, that it is necessary for people all across this country to devote one week out of the year to a discussion of nuclear policy. A group called America’s Dialogue, organized out of Eugene Oregon has decided to do just that. Upon discovering America’s Dialogue, however, I decided that it would be a better idea to use the platform that they were calling for to discuss not only the current nuclear situation, but all of the issues concerning us in these uncertain times
As a whole, the country is crying out for change, and the American people are not happy, and will no longer tolerate our government run like corporate big business. The current administration has narrowed its focus to that of attainting great wealth at the expense of this country’s citizens and the citizens of the world at large. In doing so, they have completely ignored important issues that are in dire need of being addressed. Along with the blatant dishonesty of the Bush administration, I feel it necessary today to address
1.) The current nuclear situation.
2.) American militarism and the war in Iraq.
3.) Global warming, the environment, and the privatization of water.
4.) Corporate media and information manipulation.
5.) Unbridled government spending.
6.) The disintegration of community in America.
The list goes on and on, but the majority of the issues in need of reformation can more or less fall into one of these categories. Things are unacceptable the way they are, and this discussion can be the beginning of a significant change.
.
Observing the decline of morality in our government has led me to develop a simple proposal that we, the now dissenting majority, can use to implement the changes necessary for morality, honesty, and the use of common sense in our government. This simple proposal consists of three key points that would ideally provide an avenue for change; 1.) education, 2.) commitment, 3.) action.
Education (in this sense), the lies of the Bush administration, and the importance of an alternative, independent media are undoubtedly intertwined. The marriage of the government and the mainstream media has created a situation whereby the education of the public regarding the misinformation they receive when they watch corporate media should be a major priority of justice organizations and of all dissenting citizens. It will no longer suffice to simply disagree with the policies of our current government. The dissenting citizen in today’s world must be proactive, as his rights and liberties, as set forth in the Constitution, are under attack. The government knows that an educated citizen is a threat to its totalitarian objective, so it has used the corporate media to manipulate information in hopes of producing a complacent public. The media is supposed to be part of a balance of power, objectively reporting world events without bias. With the rise of corporate politics, however, the current administration has managed to make it lucrative enough for previously objective entities to now do the government’s bidding. The mainstream media, owned by the same companies that profit from political action, have become a corporate megaphone for the current administration, beaming propaganda into our homes, when it should be exposing the very administration that now controls it. These corporate news entities intentionally do not report news of a dissenting nature at the request of the government, while the news that does get reported is intentionally skewed and misrepresented.
I cannot stress how important it is that the American public be educated about what is really going on, as this is the first step toward a significant change in the way the government does business. Only when one has been educated properly about events in the world and the resulting actions of their government, can one continue to the next step and make a commitment to be an active part of change. (As we will discover later in this proposal, the education of the American public is the responsibility of the proactive dissenting citizen, as the act of education falls under the action objective as mentioned). It is my contention that if most people received the correct information, and were told the truth about what their government is doing, they would take the next step toward making a commitment to the action necessary for change. Not everyone is going to want to hear that they are being lied to by their government. Some might accuse us educators of being “conspiracy nuts”, and some might even react with violence as you try to educate them. We must not let this discourage us, as we know that we have truth on our side and eventually truth will make itself evident. This sounds familiar does it not; “a truth self evident”?
The government’s corporate agenda has created a unique situation such that the process of educating the public has become the most important part of what organizations such as the Arkansas Coalition for Peace and Justice and others like it can do. It is possible for quantity of people to override the wealth and status that currently defines the status quo, if, and only if, those people are properly educated about the current political situation. Becoming properly educated would encourage citizens to then make a commitment to the pursuit of change, and take action to implement that change. People aren’t intentionally remaining misinformed; most just don’t realize that the long arm of the government could extent into the media, or that their government would lie to them like that, through their nightly news no less.
Making a commitment to ourselves and to this country is the next step on the road to change. This first involves taking an inventory of our beliefs as human beings, and determining that the current state of the government is such that a new platform for honest leadership is necessary. Obviously one can’t make a commitment to something that they know nothing about; therefore one must be educated about the current state of the government before they can make an honest commitment to be involved in the movement for political change.
America, while it is still the most influential country in the world, should use its influence to promote peace and justice. If it continues to wage wars for profit disguised as the spread of democracy, then I foresee the end of America and perhaps of all civilization. The military situation (with nuclear warfare a real possibility) has come to a head and we are currently at a dire crossroads. In fact, this country (and probably the rest of the world as America will take it down with it) will soon reap the whirlwind of the destruction left in its wake as the current administration marches around the world, securing wealth for the corporate few at the cost of everyone else. It’s just a matter of time until the thousands of nuclear arms around the world are unleashed, at which point, there will be no turning back. Of all the threats to human civilization, nuclear warfare looms overhead the most urgent and menacing. The amount of nuclear arms still remaining after the Cold War is enough to destroy this planet hundreds of times over, with many of these hooked into elaborate computer systems with the single push of a button between ourselves and annihilation. Never before in the course of human history has such a preventable disaster of human design been possible on the scale of the entire earth.
It is more important now than ever before that we stand up and say that this occupation of Iraq is unacceptable and that we will tolerate it no longer. It seems to me, however, that the average American doesn’t even realize that a war is taking place. The mainstream media feeds this complacency by having you and I believe that this occupation of Iraq is a normal, everyday facet of life. Nobody seems to want to acknowledge what is really going on. People are dying horrible deaths, and for what? Every other day dozens of people are killed in Iraq yet this news gets reported in the same breath as this trivial celebrity “news like Britney Spears’ shaved head.. This is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable on the part of the news media. Although this war is taking place in a different country, thousands of miles away and seems to have nothing to do with you and I, it is happening on the same planet that we all inhabit and injustice for one human being is injustice for all human beings.
Yes we can still shop at the mall, and yes we can continue to put gasoline in our cars, and yes, mortar rounds aren’t killing our children daily, but I promise you there is a war going on, an illegal war, a war that I did not say was OK. I have the distinct feeling that everyone here feels the same way that I do and I think we’d all agree that things need to change. Even as we speak, thousands of people are marching on Washington, people like you and I who are fed up with the absurdity of what is going on in Iraq. Peace is possible and dare I say an inevitability, but it’s not going to happen by itself. Let us continue our fight and continue making a difference toward ending the war in Iraq, because if we scream loud enough, the windows will shatter and then there will be no excuse for them not to hear us.
In our struggle against the corporate machine that the American government has become, we must remember the teachings of M. K. Gandhi. A non-violent civil disobedience is essential in opposition of what I have come to know as American Fascism. Non-violent opposition is the only way, for to use violence to right the wrongs of the American government is to defeat the purpose of opposition.
Quantity of committed people can override the amount of money that has previously determined the status quo. Such a change involves three key points; education, commitment, action.
In just a little over four years, America has succeeded in becoming the most hated country in the world. Previously, America had been a respected power, but the actions of the current “corporate government” and the blatant disregard it has had for even its allies, has served to vilify even the average dissenting American (including myself) in the eyes of the world at large. This is a tragedy because the current administration does not speak for me or the average American, yet it continues to make unjust and immoral decisions on the world stage that could affect and potentially send me into an armed conflict that I have nothing to do with. This is a problem for all people, and presents a moral issue which transcends any differences we may have. We must set aside any partisan, religious, or other difference and agree on the common goal of peace and justice for America and for all people.
The key to significant change in this country (thus the world) lies in the education of the general public through various alternative media outlets. Presently, if a citizen wants to get the real story, he/she has to seek it out and corporate media intentionally muddies the water to confuse the citizen and further perpetuate the lies of the current administration. Organizations like ours need to lend our strength and energy to fledgling alternative media so that citizens don’t have to wade through the confusion brought on by the marriage of corporate media and the government. The most obvious and feasible platform for alternative media lies with the internet. The internet is the one place where the content of alternative media (truth) is not regulated by the government. Presently there are several online alternative media sources where the real story is broadcast, but the problem is how to inform the citizen of their existence. The availability of these alternative sources needs to be as visible as the nightly news that streams into the American home. Americans seek out news but only to the point that they turn on their television and flip to the channels that they already know exist (CNN, FOX NEWS, etc.). We need to devise a strategy that would allow for alternative media to exist in the collective consciousness that corporate media presently does.
The obvious flaw in American government, while it is a problem, isn’t necessarily the problem. The tactics that the current administration applies in its policies throughout the world are but a symptom of a much larger problem; this is the problem of disintegrating community. The social landscape of America has all but evaporated. The only community that we seem to have left is strictly superficial, existing only to serve an economical need. We are constantly bombarded with commercials that portray community and a sense of camaraderie as some bygone social construct relegated to ancient history. It is under this environment that the current state of American government has been allowed to flourish, thus becoming marketplace politics. Never before in history has such an isolated and disaffected society existed. No wonder we have school shootings and the like. These kids have never felt a sense of community, thus they have never been subject to the compassion and empathy that used to define the human being distinct from the animal. …….(incomplete)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
