PoliticalAction.com Blog

Open Letter to Obama: Please Bring Our Troops Home Now!

Mr. President:

I am writing to urge you to announce an immediate cease-fire followed by a withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan in the fastest way consistent with the safety of our forces.

I urge you to end the use of Predator drones that kill civilians.

I call upon you to cease all covert operations in Africa, Asia, and North and South America.

Too many of your military advisors are implicated in torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace. Your Justice Department operates at the zenith of injustice, defending Bush Administration criminality in U.S. Courtrooms.

I wrote to you earlier suggesting that if you did not investigate the crimes of the Bush Administration, you would be viewed as their accessory. Sadly, war crimes and torture are now committed with your name on them.

Please bring our troops home now.

Cynthia McKinney

(Cynthia McKinney is a former US Congresswoman)

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives

Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee

December 10, 2009

Mr. Speaker thank you for holding these important hearings on US policy in Afghanistan. I would like to welcome the witnesses, Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry and General Stanley A. McChrystal, and thank them for appearing before this Committee.
I have serious concerns, however, about the president’s decision to add some 30,000 troops and an as yet undisclosed number of civilian personnel to escalate our Afghan operation. This “surge” will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. I fear the US military occupation of Afghanistan may end up similarly unsuccessful.
In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, “Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.” Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government.
Eight years into our own war in Afghanistan the Soviet commander’s words ring eerily familiar. Part of the problem stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. It is our presence as occupiers that feeds the insurgency. As would be the case if we were invaded and occupied, diverse groups have put aside their disagreements to unify against foreign occupation. Adding more US troops will only assist those who recruit fighters to attack our soldiers and who use the US occupation to convince villages to side with the Taliban.
Proponents of the president’s Afghanistan escalation cite the successful “surge” in Iraq as evidence that this second surge will have similar results. I fear they might be correct about the similar result, but I dispute the success propaganda about Iraq. In fact, the violence in Iraq only temporarily subsided with the completion of the ethnic cleansing of Shi’ites from Sunni neighborhoods and vice versa – and all neighborhoods of Christians. Those Sunni fighters who remained were easily turned against the foreign al-Qaeda presence when offered US money and weapons. We are increasingly seeing this “success” breaking down: sectarian violence is flaring up and this time the various groups are better armed with US-provided weapons. Similarly, the insurgents paid by the US to stop their attacks are increasingly restive now that the Iraqi government is no longer paying bribes on a regular basis. So I am skeptical about reports on the success of the Iraqi surge.
Likewise, we are told that we have to “win” in Afghanistan so that al-Qaeda cannot use Afghan territory to plan further attacks against the US. We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, largely planned in the United States (and Germany) by terrorists who were in our country legally. According to the logic of those who endorse military action against Afghanistan because al-Qaeda was physically present, one could argue in favor of US airstrikes against several US states and Germany! It makes no sense. The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to remain in Afghanistan because both had been engaged, with US assistance, in the insurgency against the Soviet occupation.
Nevertheless, the president’s National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, USMC (Ret.), said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? I fear that there will be increasing pressure for the US to invade Pakistan, to where many Taliban and al-Qaeda have escaped. Already CIA drone attacks on Pakistan have destabilized that country and have killed scores of innocents, producing strong anti-American feelings and calls for revenge. I do not see how that contributes to our national security.
The president’s top advisor for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, said recently, “I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we’ll know it when we see it.” That does not inspire much confidence.
Supporters of this surge argue that we must train an Afghan national army to take over and strengthen the rule and authority of Kabul. But experts have noted that the ranks of the Afghan national army are increasingly being filled by the Tajik minority at the expense of the Pashtun plurality. US diplomat Matthew Hoh, who resigned as Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. Government in Zabul Province, noted in his resignation letter that he “fail[s] to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.” Mr. Hoh went on to write that “[L]ike the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by [the Afghan] people.”
I have always opposed nation-building as unconstitutional and ineffective. Afghanistan is no different. Without a real strategy in Afghanistan, without a vision of what victory will look like, we are left with the empty rhetoric of the last administration that “when the Afghan people stand up, the US will stand down.” I am afraid the only solution to the Afghanistan quagmire is a rapid and complete US withdrawal from that country and the region. We cannot afford to maintain this empire and our occupation of these foreign lands is not making us any safer. It is time to leave Afghanistan.

Saying the Federal Reserve is the only institution in the world he knows of that isn’t audited, famed investor and author Jim Rogers said in an interview, “It’s incomprehensible to me these people are saying they have no reason to be audited — they must have done something wrong, must have something to hide.”

This was in response to a question of whether Rogers supported the bill by Ron Paul to audit the Federal Reserve.

Rogers strongly states that we not only need to audit the Fed, but like Ron Paul, we need to completely abolish it as well. Reasons for that, according to Rogers, are: “The Fed is printing huge amounts of money, which we’ll have to pay for sometime. The Fed is borrowing gigantic amounts of money on their balance sheet…the numbers are so staggering that this is going to have ramifications before too much longer.”

This practice of course has been the systemic problem of having a Federal Reserve in the first place, as it has been employing these practices since its inception, albeit on a smaller level than the extraordinary measures they’ve taken recently.

In an amazing statement most of us can only hope fervently for, Rogers says that he believes the Federal Reserve won’t need to be abolished by anyone, as it’s “going to abolish itself” sometime in the next several years. He particularly points out the horrendous performances of current Fed chairman Ben Bernanke as well as his predecessor Alan Greenspan, who in reality set up the circumstances which Bernanke responded to so poorly.

As Rogers states in the interview, he has found no credible reason for the Federal Reserve not to be fully audited, and suggests the idea of an independent Fed being interfered with by Congress concerning monetary policies, especially interest rates, is for the most part nonsense and irrelevant to the action if it does happen.

Again, there is probably much the Federal Reserve is hiding to resist the audit so much. If not, you would think they would embrace it gladly to allow its great decisions and monetary genius be seen by us all. That’s of course not the case, and is not going to happen unless it’s forced upon them by the government, which looks increasingly like it will be.

When pressed on whether the shutting down of the Federal Reserve would be devastating to the economy, Rogers stated: “Yes it would be complicated and painful for a while. But I’d rather find out they’re bankrupt today than to find out in five or 10 years — when they’ve had another 10 years of this madness where they’re printing even more money [and] taking out even more debts in our name.”

Rogers also reminds us that there have been several other central banks in the history of the United States, and when they were shut down we kept on going successfully without them. There’s no reason to suspect it would be any different without the Federal Reserve as well.

An Open Letter to The Norwegian Nobel Committee.

On December 10, you will award the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama, citing “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.” We the undersigned are distressed that President Obama, so close upon his receipt of this honor, has opted to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan with the deployment of 30,000 additional troops. We regret that he could not be guided by the example of a previous Nobel Peace Laureate, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who identified his peace prize as “profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time — the need for man [sic] to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.”

President Obama has insisted that his troop escalation is a necessary response to dangerous instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but we reject the notion that military action will advance the region’s stability, or our own national security. In his peace prize acceptance speech, Dr. King observed that “Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts…man [sic] must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation.” As people committed to end the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are filled with remorse by this new decision of our president, for it will not bring peace.

Declaring his opposition to the Vietnam War, Dr. King insisted that “no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war…We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways… We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man [sic] of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.”

We pledge ourselves to mobilize our constituencies in the spirit of Dr. King’s nonviolent and committed example. His prophetic words will guide us as we assemble in the halls of Congress, in local offices of elected representatives, and in the streets of our cities and towns, protesting every proposal that will continue funding war. We will actively and publicly oppose the war funding which President Obama will soon seek from Congress and re-commit ourselves to the protracted struggle against U.S. war-making in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We assume that the Nobel Committee chose to award President Obama the peace prize in full awareness of the vision offered by Dr. King’s acceptance speech. We also understand that the Nobel committee may now regret that decision in light of recent developments, as we believe that the committee should be reluctant to present an Orwellian message equating peace with war. When introducing the President, the Committee should, at the very least, exhibit a level of compassion and humility by drawing attention to this distressing ambiguity.

We will do all we can to ensure that popular pressure will soon bring President Obama to an acceptance of the duties which this prize, and even more his electoral mandate to be a figure of change, impose upon him.  He must end the catastrophic policies of occupation and war that have caused so much destruction, so many deaths and displacements, and so much injury to our own democratic traditions.

This prize is not a meaningless honor.  We pledge, ourselves obeying its call to nonviolent action, to make our President worthy of it.

Sincerely,
Jack Amoureux – Board of Directors
Military Families Speak Out

Medea Benjamin – Co-Founder,
Global Exchange

Frida Berrigan – Witness Against Torture

Elaine Brower – World Can’t Wait

Leslie Cagan – Co-Founder
United for Peace and Justice

Bob Cooke – Regional Coordinator
Pax Christi USA, Pax Christi Metro, DC and Baltimore

Tom Cornell – Catholic Peace Fellowship

Matt Daloisio – War Resisters League

Marie Dennis – Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Laurie Dobson – Director,
End US Wars

Mike Ferner – National President
Veterans For Peace

Joy First- Convener
National Campaign for Non-Violent Resistance

Sara Flounders – International Action Center

Diana Gibson – Christian Peace Witness

Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb – Shomer Shalom Network for Jewish Nonviolence

David Hartsough – Peaceworkers, San Francisco

Mike Hearington – Georgia Peace & Justice Coalition

Kimber J. Heinz – Organizing Coordinator
War Resisters League

Mark Johnson – Director
Fellowship of Reconciliation

Kathy Kelly – Co-coordinator
Voices for Creative Non-Violence

Leslie Kielson – Co-Chair
United for Peace and Justice

Malachy Kilbride – National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance

Kevin Martin – Executive Director
Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund

Linda LeTendre – Saratoga [New York] Peace Alliance

Michael T. McPhearson – National Executive Director,
Veterans For Peace

Gael Murphy – Co-Founder,
Code Pink

Sheila Musaji – The American Muslim

Michael Nagler – Founder
Metta Center for Nonviolence

Max Obuszewski – Pledge of Resistance Baltimore and Baltimore Nonviolence Center

Pete Perry – Peace of the Action

Dave Robinson, Executive Director
Pax Christi

David Swanson – AfterDowningStreet.org

Terry Rockefeller – Families for Peaceful Tomorrows

Samina Sundas – Founding Executive Director
The American Muslim Voice

Nancy Tsou – Coordinator,
Rockland Coalition for Peace and Justice

Diane Turco – Cape Codders for Peace and Justice

Marge Van Cleef – Womens International League for Peace and Freedom

Jose Vasquez – Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War

Craig Wiesner
Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice

Scott Wright – Pax Christi Metro DC – Baltimore

Kevin Zeese – Executive Director
Voters for Peace

here’s Ron and Glenn Beck laying out a lot of heavy stuff….

United States Senator Arlen Specter, For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Dear Friends:

I want to share with you an op-ed (link here and copied below) I wrote that ran in today’s Philadelphia Daily News about why I oppose sending additional American troops to Afghanistan.

If you are interested in learning more about how I came to this decision, I encourage you read the floor statement I made in September in which I raised substantive questions about our mission in Afghanistan. At that time, I also wrote detailed letters to – and subsequently received responses and briefings from – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, CIA Director Leon Panetta, DNI Director Dennis Blair and Admiral Mike Mullen.

As always, please don’t hesitate to contact me on this and any other issues of importance to you.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

Why I oppose the Afghan surge
By ARLEN SPECTER

I’M OPPOSED to sending 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan because I don’t believe they are indispensable in our fight against al Qaeda.
If they were, I’d support such a surge because we have to do whatever it takes to defeat al Qaeda, which seeks to annihilate us.

But if al Qaeda can organize and operate out of Yemen, Somalia or elsewhere, then why fight in Afghanistan, which has made a history of resisting would-be conquerors – from Alexander the Great in the 3rd century BC, to Great Britain in the 19th and early 20th centuries, to the former Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s?

In order to be successful in Afghanistan, it’s necessary to have a reliable ally in the Afghan government. The evidence demonstrates that President Hamid Karzai does not have the requisite reliability.

THE LEGITIMACY of his administration is suspect because of vote fraud. There is widespread corruption at the highest levels of his government. His government has tolerated, if not encouraged, drug-trafficking.

President Obama has said, “President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction.” In my judgment, any such “message” amounts to a dubious and belated pledge of reform and deserves to be treated with the greatest skepticism.

For too long, the United States has borne the overwhelming weight of providing troops with only modest NATO contributions. We currently provide 68,000 troops, Britain 9,500 and the other countries just over 36,000. NATO has pledged another 7,000 troops, an inadequate response when you consider the combined populations of NATO countries – excluding the United States – and the threat they face from al Qaeda.

In the context of the Vietnam and Iraq wars, it is understandable that the American people are very skeptical about fighting in Afghanistan. Had we known that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, we would not have gone into Iraq.

Historians have replayed the tragic mistakes in Vietnam. When you add the 851 killed and 4,605 wounded in Afghanistan to the 4,369 killed and 31,575 wounded in Iraq, it is understandable that the American people do not want to continue the overwhelming burden of fighting in Afghanistan with so little assistance from our allies and so little prospects for success.

The cost of the Afghanistan war imposes an additional burden. It costs $1 million a year for each soldier, or $30 billion a year to support 30,000 additional troops. The cost for the total force in Afghanistan of approximately 100,000 soldiers would be more than $100 billion a year.

Pursuing a successful war in Afghanistan would require considerable additional support from Pakistan.

While Pakistan has been more helpful in recent weeks, their long-term commitment remains uncertain. For years, I’ve urged that the United States should take the lead in brokering a rapprochement with India that would allow Pakistan to redeploy forces from the Indian border to Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds in the mountainous regions of the north. If we could cool that tension with India, they could help us fight the Taliban and al Qaeda.

My opposition to the troop surge in no way diminishes my concern over the challenge we face in al Qaeda and the need to confront it wherever it emerges.

But I question whether Afghanistan is the primary front or even the only battlefield when we may face emerging challenges in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan itself. That is where we have the best chance to succeed.

We should concentrate on fighting al Qaeda without limitation on time or resources, but we should not engage in the laborious and problematic task of nation-building, or civil affairs, or the protection of other societies in place of their own security systems.

This noble man is spot on again…..

High-stakes duel between Rep. Paul and chairman Bernanke intensifies

By Silla Brush | The Hill
12/08/09

Rep. Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke are locked in a clash of titans.

Paul, the 74-year-old House libertarian from Texas with the high-pitched voice, has fought for decades to kill off the Federal Reserve.

Bernanke, the mild-mannered ex-Princeton professor and chairman of the bank, is waging a high-stakes battle for the Fed’s reputation. And he’s doing everything possible to knock out Paul.

The fight is still in the early rounds. But with the full House expected to vote this week to give government auditors more power to scrutinize the Fed, Paul has the upper hand.

The Senate is a much more difficult round for Paul, though a similar stew of liberal and conservative support is starting to simmer in the upper chamber behind the Republican’s wonky auditing measure.

Bernanke and Paul have never met one-on-one behind closed doors, Paul’s office said. The battle has taken place in public — on blogs, with grassroots activists and during congressional hearings.

Bernanke has testified against the provision, given lengthy media interviews, written op-eds and attempted to lift the cloud of secrecy that hangs over the bank.

The Fed is audited, he argues, but allowing government scrutiny of interest rate decisions will politicize the Fed. Opening the door to congressionally requested audits would compromise the market’s confidence in the bank.

Paul, a longstanding supporter of a new gold standard, made his case formally in his recently published book, End the Fed.

The 2008 presidential candidate’s crusade is no longer a quixotic quest. He is a prime beneficiary of the grassroots anger this year against government bailouts for Wall Street.

First introduced in February, Paul’s bill to audit the Fed has gained 317 co-sponsors, a shocking three-quarters of the House. The bill has not won over many Democrats in leadership, but it has picked up several committee chairmen, including Reps. Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Jim Oberstar (Minn.) and John Spratt (S.C.).

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a prominent Paul ally on the bill, has provided a huge boost to the effort with his firebrand strain of liberal politics.
Grayson has publicly slammed the Fed, going so far as calling its top lobbyist a “K Street whore” before apologizing. Paul himself said the full force of “lobbyists for the Fed” is stacked against him.

As the popularity of the Paul-Grayson measure rose this year, Bernanke’s fell.

Praised by many economists for taking the necessary steps to right the economy over the last year, his overall public approval has soured. A Rasmussen poll in November showed that just 21 percent of those surveyed thought Bernanke should be reappointed. Meanwhile, 79 percent of those polled said auditing the Fed is a good idea.

Republicans have jumped behind Paul, who stood out in last year’s GOP presidential primary for his outspokenness against the Iraq war.

“There needs to be Fed independence and accountability for those dollars to at least look back at those decisions,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas).

But the political value is plain as Republicans argue the government is taking too large a role in the economy.

“The Fed becomes for Republicans a very convenient, always controversial, always misunderstood, very specific whipping boy that they can ride to potential victory in 2010 and 2012,” said a Washington-based financial lobbyist.

Bernanke has the normally powerful Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) in his corner. But as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank couldn’t eke out a compromise.

Frank rarely loses battles, but an attempt — with Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) — at a deal on the audit issue simply fell short at the committee level. Liberal activist Robert Borosage, who is campaigning against Bernanke’s nomination for a second term, said the compromise effort was nothing more than “the establishment alternative.”

The committee voted 43-26 in favor of Paul’s amendment as 15 Democrats on the panel bucked Frank.

The vote drew a bright line between the senior Democrats atop the committee and the freshman and sophomore members.

“I think some of the newer members are in the most vulnerable districts,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), a Paul-Grayson co-sponsor who instead joined Frank in voting against the Paul amendment. “They were certainly getting the calls that I was getting, and they were reading the politics differently.”

Frank and Paul are both veterans of the House, and while they are on nearly opposite ends of the political spectrum, they have a mutual respect. The two have worked closely on an Internet gaming measure.

Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill say that Frank, despite his partisan rhetoric, is a pragmatist.

“I never felt [Frank] was against me,” Paul said.

Frank said last week the language wouldn’t be changed when the House heads for the vote. Ten of the 13 House members on the Rules Committee are among Paul’s backers, including Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

“Absent some change in the way the public is reacting, I don’t see any changes,” Frank said. “I think there is this tension within the Republican Party. A lot of their people who traditionally have a lot of influence are troubled by this, but they may be cowed by the anger at the Fed.”

In the Senate, Paul has found support from Sens. Jim DeMint, the conservative Republican from South Carolina, and Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont who calls himself a proud socialist.

A left-right coalition of interest groups on the outside is joining forces against Bernanke.

Bob Cusack contributed to this article.

Texas Straight Talk – A weekly column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Who Wants War?

If anyone still doubted that this administration’s foreign policy would bring any kind of change, this week’s debate on Afghanistan should remove all doubt. The President’s stated justifications for sending more troops to Afghanistan and escalating war amount to little more than recycling all the false reasons we began the conflict. It is so discouraging to see this coming from our new leadership, when the people were hoping for peace. New polls show that 49 percent of the people favor minding our own business on the world stage, up from 30 percent in 2002. Perpetual war is not solving anything. Indeed continually seeking out monsters to destroy abroad only threatens our security here at home as international resentment against us builds. The people understand this and are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being heard by the decision-makers. The leaders say some things the people want to hear, but change never comes.

One has to ask, if the people who elected these leaders so obviously do not want these wars, who does? Eisenhower warned of the increasing power and influence of the military industrial complex and it seems his worst fears have come true. He believed in a strong national defense, as do I, but warned that the building up of permanent military and weapons industries could prove dangerous if their influence got out of hand. After all, if you make your money on war, peace does you no good. With trillions of dollars at stake, there is tremendous incentive to keep the decision makers fearful of every threat in the world, real or imagined, present or future, no matter how ridiculous and far-fetched. The Bush Doctrine demonstrates how very successful the war lobby was philosophically with the last administration. And they are succeeding just as well with this one, in spite of having the so-called “peace candidate” in office.

We now find ourselves in another foreign policy quagmire with little hope of victory, and not even a definition of victory. Eisenhower said that only an alert and informed electorate could keep these war racketeering pressures at bay. He was right, and the key is for the people to ensure that their elected leaders follow the Constitution. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress in order to legitimately go to war. Bypassing this critical step makes it far too easy to waste resources on nebulous and never-ending conflicts. Without clear goals, the conflicts last forever and drain the country of blood and treasure. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war precisely because they feared allowing the executive unfettered discretion in military affairs. They understood that making it easy for leaders to wage foreign wars would threaten domestic liberties.

Responses to attacks on our soil should be swift and brief. Wars we fight should always be defensive, clearly defined and Constitutional. The Bush Doctrine of targeting potential enemies before they do anything to us is dangerously vague and easily abused. There is nothing left to win in Afghanistan and everything to lose. Today’s military actions are yet another futile exercise in nation building and have nothing to do with our nation’s security, or with 9/11. Most experts agree that Bin Laden and anyone remotely connected to 9/11 left Afghanistan long ago, but our troops remain. The pressures of the war racketeers need to be put in check before we are brought to our knees by them. Unfortunately, it will require a mighty effort by the people to get the leadership to finally listen.