Funding War, Choosing Sides

Funding War, Choosing Sides

The House approved $33 billion for a 30,000-troop escalation in Afghanistan this week and in doing so took money away from other places it was desperately needed.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Coming on the eve of another war funding vote, many wondered if the the memos leaked by Wikileaks on the details of the Afghanistan deployment might make a difference. At the first test, the answer appears to have been no.

The House approved $33 billion for a 30,000-troop escalation in Afghanistan this week and in doing so took money away from other places it was desperately needed: public schools, green energy and job creation, the lot. 60 percent of Democrats and 93 percent of Republicans think increasing the deficit is just fine when it comes to war.

But David Swanson found some good news in the clear vote on the war funding measure. At least anti-war folks know who’s on what side: who’s with and who’s against.

Swanson pointed out that a good chunk of the Democratic caucus is opposed to more money for war even when their own leadership is asking for it. Republicans are clearly willing to keep fighting, and funding, regardless, despite their howls about waste and big government. There’s one more fact too: the number of anti-war Congresspeople has risen — significantly — approaching the number of members willing to vote for a mild non-binding timetable for withdrawal.

Wrote Swanson on his blog: “Willingness to express mild interest in ending the war has reached a plateau. Willingness to take serious action to end the war is rapidly catching up. Of course, both have to top 218 before we win.”

With the WikiLeaks documents, and the media’s attention on the topic, it’s time to redouble efforts to push more members of Congress against the war, says Swanson. And barring that, there’s an election’s coming up.

Do you know how your Congressperson voted? There’s a link here if you want to check.

The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders, the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Support us by signing up for our podcast, and follow GRITtv or GRITlaura on Twitter.com.

We cannot back down

We now confront a second Trump presidency.

There’s not a moment to lose. We must harness our fears, our grief, and yes, our anger, to resist the dangerous policies Donald Trump will unleash on our country. We rededicate ourselves to our role as journalists and writers of principle and conscience.

Today, we also steel ourselves for the fight ahead. It will demand a fearless spirit, an informed mind, wise analysis, and humane resistance. We face the enactment of Project 2025, a far-right supreme court, political authoritarianism, increasing inequality and record homelessness, a looming climate crisis, and conflicts abroad. The Nation will expose and propose, nurture investigative reporting, and stand together as a community to keep hope and possibility alive. The Nation’s work will continue—as it has in good and not-so-good times—to develop alternative ideas and visions, to deepen our mission of truth-telling and deep reporting, and to further solidarity in a nation divided.

Armed with a remarkable 160 years of bold, independent journalism, our mandate today remains the same as when abolitionists first founded The Nation—to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, serve as a beacon through the darkest days of resistance, and to envision and struggle for a brighter future.

The day is dark, the forces arrayed are tenacious, but as the late Nation editorial board member Toni Morrison wrote “No! This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

I urge you to stand with The Nation and donate today.

Onwards,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x