United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

On Thursday the House voted down an Iraq and Afghansitan war funding proposal in what the Washington Post called a "surprise action left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant, Republicans gloating, and Democratic leaders baffled."[1] -- "Recriminations from all sides quickly followed," Johathan Weisman said. -- Among those exulting were the Progressive Democrats of America, who described the action this way: "The appropriations amendment granting 162.5 billion dollars more for operations in Iraq failed to pass the House today. Eighty-five Democrats voted with fifty-six Republicans for a total of 141 votes for the amendment. The congressional Progressive Caucus hung together and with other Democrats and two Republicans cast 147 votes to defeat the amendment. Whether 132 House Republicans abstained in today's vote in a protest against Pelosi's parliamentary procedures or to distance themselves from the president is yet to be determined. Either way, it worked to allow the House to finally vote against funding for the occupation of Iraq."[2] -- Unfortunately, all of Pierce County representatives (Norm Dicks, Adam Smith, and Dave Reichert) were on the wrong side of the 149-141 vote. -- Paul Richmond, an attorney who is mounting a challenge to Norm Dick in Washington's 6th Congressional district, issued a statement proclaiming that Dicks's vote "shows that the Congressman is at odds with the majority of citizens, the majority of Democrats, and his constituency."[3] -- Richmond also called attention to Washington State Congressional District Caucuses which will be held tomorrow, and urged supporters to "show your support for my campaign, please consider a visit to Shelton, (on the Peninsula, North of Tacoma) early Saturday morning."[4] -- See also here for details of the process; the nominating convention will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m....

An odd coalition of angry Republicans and antiwar Democrats yesterday torpedoed a $162.5 billion proposal to continue funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving the House to pass a measure that demands troop withdrawals, bans torture, and expands education benefits for returning veterans.

The surprise action left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant, Republicans gloating, and Democratic leaders baffled. Recriminations from all sides quickly followed.

House leaders had broken the war funding bill into three separate measures. The first, to continue funding combat operations, needed Republican votes to pass over the objection of antiwar Democrats. The second would impose strict Iraq-related policy measures strongly opposed by President Bush, and the third would fund domestic priorities, including a new G.I. Bill and levees around New Orleans.

That legislative legerdemain became the plan's undoing. Rather than go along, 131 House Republicans voted "present" on the war funding provision, saying they were incensed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a few of her lieutenants had drafted the bill in secret, then expected them to play along.

"It was a political scheme. We wanted to expose it, and we did," declared House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Democrats saw it differently. "Republicans had the choice -- fund the troops or don't fund the troops. They voted present," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).

"You can't say something is the critical battle of our time and vote present," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). "Explain that to the troops."

The strange conclusion to the day-long war debate may not help a Congress mired in record-low approval ratings and a House GOP that is reeling from internal dissension and three straight losses in special elections in reliably Republican districts.

But the impact is likely to be short-lived. The Senate will take up its version of the war funding bill next week; it is expected to restore the war funds and strip out the policy prescriptions most disagreeable to the White House.

The White House reiterated its veto threat of the overall package yesterday morning, demanding a new version stripped of policy prescriptions and domestic spending, including the bill's $52 billion expansion of veterans' education benefits. The supplemental appropriations vote is the last major clash on Iraq policy between Congress and Bush.

Had it become law, the House bill would have brought the total cost of the war in Iraq to around $660 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service, more expensive than any U.S. military effort except World War II.

As passed, the House bill would require troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days, with a goal of removing all combat forces by December 2009. The Iraqi government would have to match U.S. reconstruction funding dollar for dollar, and would be required to offer the U.S. military the same fuel subsidies it provides its own citizens.

Troops would get more rest between combat deployments, and every branch of government -- including the Central Intelligence Agency -- would have to abide by the Army Field Manual's guidelines on interrogation, which bans action that amount to torture. Those policy prescriptions passed the House by 227 to 196, with a surprising eight Republican votes, including Reps. Michael N. Castle (Del.), Christopher Shays (Conn.), and James T. Walsh (N.Y.).

On the domestic side, unemployment compensation would be extended for 13 weeks. Regulations the Bush administration hoped to impose to restrict access to the Medicaid program would be blocked. Funds would be provided for international food aid, levees around New Orleans, federal prisons and the 2010 Census. And the G.I, Bill passed after World War II for an earlier generation of veterans would be updated.

The politically controversial expanded G.I. Bill was expected to give momentum to the House measure. The provision, written by Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), would cover the costs of school at even the most expensive state universities for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and would encourage private universities to provide additional student aid for them. The House bill would pay for the benefit with a surtax of half a percentage point on income over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples.

The measure has attracted broad bipartisan support, but it is opposed by Bush because of its cost, its tax increase, and fears that its generosity could entice service members to leave the military rather than reenlist at the end of their tours. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, has put forward a less generous alternative that would save its richest benefits for service members doing multiple tours.

But McCain's efforts have run into bipartisan opposition -- from lawmakers, veterans organizations, and educators. Former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, a close McCain ally, came out for Webb's measure yesterday.

"I have tremendous regard for Senator McCain, but I can't figure out where he is right now," said Dartmouth College President James Wright, a former Marine who helped negotiate the Webb-Warner language. "It seems to me our posture as a nation cannot be to say to servicemen and -women, 'We do not value you unless you reenlist.' That wasn't the contract they signed."

"It is time now for Americans to be heard and for this Congress to move forward with the safe redeployment of our troops," exulted Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) who called on the House to use the $162.5 billion in war funds for domestic priorities.

"For the first time ever, the U.S. House has now taken decisive action to bring this war to a close," declared Alan Charney, program director of the antiwar group USAction.

When the Senate takes up the bill, its version will include war funding, but prescriptions on troop withdrawals and torture will probably fall to a GOP filibuster. Republicans have argued that any tax increase is unacceptable, especially in a time of economic slowdown. Even Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they will oppose the House's tax increase to pay for veterans benefits.

More unclear is the future of the education benefits, as well as domestic spending that Bush has vowed to veto but will garner considerable support in both parties. The Senate also is expected to go along with House efforts to force the Iraqi government to shoulder more of its reconstruction and self-defense costs.

The appropriations amendment granting 162.5 billion dollars more for operations in Iraq failed to pass the House today. Eighty-five Democrats voted with fifty-six Republicans for a total of 141 votes for the amendment. The congressional Progressive Caucus hung together and with other Democrats and two Republicans cast 147 votes to defeat the amendment. Whether 132 House Republicans abstained in today's vote in a protest against Pelosi's parliamentary procedures or to distance themselves from the president is yet to be determined. Either way, it worked to allow the House to finally vote against funding for the occupation of Iraq.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair and PDA advisory board member Rep. Lynn Woolsey said, "Today the House took the bold step of standing up to President Bush, and rejected yet another blank check for his failed occupation of Iraq. Instead, we sent a message to the President that we will no longer stand idly by as his head in the sand approach to Iraq continues to drive our country straight into the ground.

"While much of the attention will inevitably be focused on the parliamentary shenanigans of the House Republicans, what's really important is that this vote shows that if the President won't bring our troops home from Iraq, the Democrats will," she concluded.

On the second amendment with the various policy provisions concerning no permanent bases, no torture, and other provisions, passed 227 to 196. Eight Republicans voted for it and thirteen Democrats voted against the amendment.

Amendment #3 passed, which would provide funding for unemployment benefits and other urgent domestic needs, in a 256 to 166 vote. Seven Democrats voted against it.

The bill will soon be taken up in the Senate, but until then progressives should recognize this as a win. At long last, the House has finally said "NO" in large part because we have vigilant in our opposition to war.

Paul Richmond, Democratic Candidate for U.S. Congress
Washington’s 6th District
2023 East Sims Way, #263, Port Townsend, WA, 98368M
Phone: (360) 379-5575, Fax: (360) 379-5116

Forty hours before Democrats in Washington’s 6th Congressional District will meet to endorse a candidate, Incumbent Norm Dicks broke with the majority of his party and voted to support continued funding of the illegal Iraq War and Occupation. The Campaign of Paul Richmond issued this Statement:

"We are astounded that our opponent Congressman Norm Dicks joined with a minority of Democrats in voting for continued funding of the useless and illegal Iraq War and Occupation. While the vote was thankfully defeated (147 Democrats, 2 Republicans voted No, 132 Republicans merely voted present) it shows that the Congressman is at odds with the majority of citizens, the majority of Democrats, and his constituency.

"The rank and file of the Democratic Party has been asking for the U.S. to leave Iraq for many years.

* At the 2004 National Convention the majority of the delegates wanted us out.
* The Democrats won majorities in both houses in 2006 in large part because this war had gone on too long and people wanted us out.
* At the local party’s conventions and platform meetings, it’s one of the main things people talk about.

"The money that’s being wasted killing people in Iraq could be used to feed us here, educate us, give us medical care, end the repossession of our homes. We can build an infrastructure that isn’t falling apart. We can start whole new industries around fuel sources other than petroleum.

"Estimates are now that the Iraq War and Occupation will already cost us Six Trillion ($6,000,000,000,000) Dollars. That does not include the more than thirty thousand (30,000) wounded veterans and their families.

"The war and occupation in Iraq has brought us more than 4,000 American dead and more than 30,000 Americans with wounds that are nearly fatal.

"This last means tens of thousands of young Americans with parts of their bodies no longer working or parts of their bodies missing. It means thousands of young Americans with parts of their skulls blown off trying to learn how to speak, trying to learn to walk, trying to learn to feed themselves again. It means thousands of young Americans spending their lives around machines that help them breathe. It means thousands of young Americans who need their relatives to help them with their catheters so that they can even urinate.

"And as for the country we are supposedly trying to save, when you add in the number of refugees, wounded, and dead, the number of Iraqi people whose lives have been utterly annihilated now far exceeds the number of people living in the 6th District and rivals the entire population of Washington State.

"Dick’s loyalty to the military economy is understandable. It has brought jobs to the region. But they are not sustainable jobs. And our country’s obsession with the military at the expense of all else is the reason the rest of the economy is in a tailspin. When there’s no money to bail out people who are losing their homes to predatory lenders, but there are millions to build planes and boats that even the military doesn’t want, there’s a problem. When there’s no money to give 47 million U.S. Citizens health care, but there’s billions for private contractors, there’s a problem. When there are estimates that there are 200,000 homeless Veterans because of previous wars, and there’s money to keep this farce going, it’s a problem.

"When you look at the world’s strongest economies, Germany and Japan, and notice that they’re economies that were forced to move away from war related industries, there’s a solution, and it’s pretty obvious. It’s also pretty obvious Norm Dicks isn’t going to take us in that direction.

"Enough is enough. For years the majority of Democrats in Congress, including Congressman Dicks seem to have acknowledged that their votes authorizing the Iraq debacle were a mistake. This vote doesn’t seem to bear it out.

"Voters in this election, have a choice as to whether they want to continue down this road. Paul Richmond has opposed the U.S. slaughter in Iraq since 1991.

"This Saturday Democrats in the 6th Congressional District will meet to endorse Richmond or Dicks. This recent vote by Norm Dicks makes the choice crystal clear."

As most of you know, I am challenging Congressman Norm Dicks in the 6th District. One of the main planks I've been running on is ending the Iraq War and Occupation.

Just a few hours ago, my opponent broke with the majority of Democrats and voted to give yet more funding for this war. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll328.xml)

This Saturday at 7:30 the 6th District Democrats will be having their nominating convention this Saturday morning. (www.masoncountydemocrats.com)

If you would like to show your support for my campaign, please consider a visit to Shelton, (on the Peninsula, North of Tacoma) early Saturday morning.