Congress is about to consider a war funding supplemental that would finance
the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations well into the next Administration.
While this was covered in Monday's Chronicle, the article ignored the facts
that Speaker Pelosi may ram it through without a committee markup and that
Pelosi is opposed by three candidates this year who would not vote for the
bill.
The media is giving Pelosi a pass and the activist community is too poorly
organized to do anything about it. Here's the statement I made on Sunday on
behalf of Phil at a candidates forum at the Victoria Theatre:
Hello, my name is Marc Joffe, a member of the Libertarian Party representing
Philip Berg, the LP's Candidate for the 8th District House Seat. Phil is
back East tending to a sick relative.
Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi couldn't make it here either; nor did she bother
to send a representative. Speaker Pelosi won't address the anti-war
movement until we become sufficiently organized to fill a space larger than
this one.
If the Speaker were able to join us, I would have a few questions for her.
For example, why Madame Speaker is the House Leadership considering a
measure to finance the Iraq occupation until well into 2009 - thereby
avoiding another war debate later this year?
Why was language demanding that the Administration not start a war with Iran
without Congressional approval stripped from last year's war funding bill?
Why do we need to continue the endless occupation of Afghanistan when it
appears that al Qaeda leadership moved on to reside in Pakistan - our
supposed ally - years ago.
And, most importantly, if you really oppose the Iraq War Ms. Pelosi, why do
you continue to use your power as Speaker to bring supplemental war funding
bills to the floor in the first place?
The principled approach to the issue of funding an immoral war is to do
whatever one can do to block it. Instead, Speaker Pelosi appears to be fast
tracking a bill containing over 170 billion dollars of new war funding to
the House floor, without even a committee debate.
My friends, I submit to you that the Speaker is trying to minimize debate on
the Iraq War this year because she thinks it's bad for the prospects of
holding and increasing the Democratic Party's majority in the House. She is
trying to help vulnerable incumbents in red states, by moving toward the
so-called center on the issue of war.
This is a classic case of compromising principle for the sake of power. The
price of this compromise will fall largely on the backs of hundreds of young
Americans who will die needlessly as the occupation continues for another
year. The price will also be paid by tens of thousands of American families
as their loved ones are called back to the Middle East for their third,
fourth or even fifth deployments. And, all Americans will pay, since the
financial cost of these occupations now exceeds 1% of our Gross Domestic
Product each year.
But the biggest price of all is being paid by the Iraqis, who have suffered
countless deaths and injuries, millions displaced and the entire fabric of
their society disrupted first through sanctions in the 90's and the endless
occupation of today.
On another level, it could be seen as foolish for us to expect Speaker
Pelosi to risk political power in order to take a principled stand. One is
unlikely to rise to the highest position in the biggest deliberative body in
the world's most powerful country by being principled.
But our Democratic system provides a way for the people to force political
leaders to do the right thing - and it's called voting. Right now, Speaker
Pelosi can cater to the needs of vulnerable Red State Democrats because she
is not worried about holding on to her own seat. In 2006, she was
re-elected with 80% of the vote.
The fact that Pelosi is unworried about her own political prospects is a sad
commentary on the people of San Francisco, who she supposedly represents.
This most progressive of electorates, overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq
War, can and should hold the Speaker to account for her failure to end it.
But, thus far, we have failed to do so.
In this election year of 2008, let us demand that the Speaker begin to
represent the will of San Francisco and do whatever she can to bring US
intervention in the Middle East to an end.
Let us demand that local talk show hosts and columnists focus on Pelosi's
role in perpetuating the war.
Let us demand that newspaper, radio and TV reporters ask her tough questions
about war funding whenever they interview her.
And, most importantly, let's support and vote for alternative candidates, so
that she gets the message that San Franciscans want action.
Now, I'm sorry to disappoint this audience, but I have to tell you that I
expect Speaker Pelosi to be re-elected in 2008. If our goal is to unseat
her, we are likely to be disappointed, lose hope and stop working for peace.
For me, however, victory this year will be found in a noticeably smaller
winning margin for the incumbent. If we simply send Pelosi the message
that she is vulnerable and that she could perhaps lose in 2010 or 2012 -
maybe it will be enough to move her to do the right thing.
I also need to share another piece of disappointing news with you. John
McCain may well be our next President. By taking advantage of divisions
within the Democratic Party, and by "swift-boating" the eventual Democratic
nominee, the Republicans may hold on to the White House for another four
years.
If McCain wins and Pelosi remains speaker, what are we to expect? Four more
years of rhetoric against the war, and financing of it? And, if we stay in
for another four years, who is going to believe that we'll ever leave?
We'll be well on our way to the 100 year occupation McCain suggested back in
January.
Let me just spend a brief moment on some differences between the
Libertarians and the progressive majority here in San Francisco. When most
of you think that over 170 billion dollars is about to wasted on another
year of foreign wars, you think about all the great things that that money
could do for our community. And, so, you demand that the government spend
the money on education, jobs, health case, etc.
As a Libertarian, I have two concerns with that. First, the government
doesn't have that 170 billion to spend in the first place. The war has, is
and will be paid for by debt - by mortgaging our nation's future.
Right now, our economy is strong enough to carry this burden of debt,
although the cracks are already beginning to show with a shrinking dollar,
rising inflation and a slackening economy. But far worse is yet to come.
When the bulk of the baby boom generation retires, many more people will
need social security benefits. If the government fails to get its financial
house in order, it won't have the money to pay these future retirees. What
it may well end up doing is printing new money to pay these benefits,
triggering ever higher levels of inflation and the economic misery it
causes.
I also have a second concern about the idea of shifting war funding to other
forms of government spending. How can you trust an institution that has
squandered over half-a-trillion dollars on an unnecessary war, gives massive
subsidies to big corporations and pays wealthy farmers not to grow food to
spend this money wisely?
But while we may disagree on economic issues, I believe strongly that
Libertarians and Progressives must focus on the things that unite us in
today's difficult world.
We agree that the US occupation in Iraq needs to end immediately. We agree
that torture, warrantless wiretapping, rendition, detention without the
right of habeas corpus and the illegal detention facility at Guantanamo Bay
are all outrages. And we agree that those responsible for these crimes
should be brought to justice.
Let us put aside our differences and join hands for the sake of peace. And
let us work together to hold our Congressional Representative to account.
On March 21, 2005, Congress held a rare Sunday session, working through the
weekend to prolong the life one unfortunate woman named Terry Schiavo, who
had been in a persistent vegetative state for the previous fifteen years.
To me, it is amazing that Congress could go to all this trouble on account
of a single woman who had no meaningful prospect of regaining consciousness.
Yet, when the lives of tens of thousands of alert, vigorous young Americans
are at stake on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressional
leaders cannot find the time later this year to hold a proper debate.
Let's send Speaker Pelosi the message that this sort of politics will no
longer be accepted in San Francisco.
Thank you for listening.