Last week, Republican hawks blocked a vote on legislation to end the war because they knew it had a real chance of passing. It’s outrageous, and another sign that we need to build up the pro-peace majority in Congress.

For three of our pro-peace challengers, it all comes down to the primary on June 5th. Every dollar will count. Can you donate $15 to help these candidates in their final grassroots push before the primary? 

President Obama announced a few weeks ago his plan to leave the door open to keeping thousands of troops on the ground in Afghanistan until 2024. That’s why we need Norman Solomon bringing his years of peace activism to California’s 2nd district. We need progressive Lori Saldaña to kick out pro-war Rep. Brian Bilbray in the 52nd district in San Diego. We need Franke Wilmer, a state legislator and scholar of war and peace, to fill Montana’s only House seat.

Help elect these strong pro-peace leaders who will fight to bring our troops home. Click here to donate to our challengers in these last critical days. 

Other candidates in these races may be sitting on piles of money. But our candidates have the power of the people.

Show them the peace movement has their back by donating to Norman, Lori and Franke today.

Last week, H.Res. 568, a bill that lowers the threshold for war with Iran, passed overwhelmingly in the House, and a Senate version of the bill is currently picking up steam. This hawkish rhetoric came just days before the second round P5+1 talks with Iran in Baghdad, and could threaten the tentative progress toward a diplomatic solution that was made in the first round of negotiations last month. Not helpful, to say the least. In the words of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell,

This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war, and could be the precursor for a war with Iran….it’s effectively a thinly-disguised effort to bless war.

It is important to note, however, that the vote came only after one of its lead sponsors, Howard Berman (D-CA), went on the record to define its terms more specifically, and to clarify that the bill does not specifically authorize military action. Meanwhile, an amendment stating that nothing in the NDAA authorizes military force against Iran was adopted, while Rep. Barbara Lee’s amendment to appoint a special envoy for US-Iran relations, giving diplomacy the patient attention it needs received a paltry 77 votes.

While the intentions of Congress on the matter are less than clear, one thing is crystal: the military option is not an option at all, and should be taken off the table for good. Let’s hear what top military and intelligence officials have to say on the matter.

Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense:

[If Iran were to be attacked] the United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases, and there are economic consequences to that attack….which could impact a very fragile economy in Europe and a fragile economy here in the United States.

The consequence could be that we would have an escalation that would take place that would not only involve many lives, but I think it could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.

Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense (2006 – 2011):

If you think the war in Iraq was hard, an attack on Iran would, in my opinion, be a catastrophe.

Conner’s axiom — never fight unless you have to — looms over policy discussions today regarding rogue nations like Iran … Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels.

Meir Dagan, former head of the Israeli intelligence agency MOSSAD:

 [The possibility of an Israeli Air Force Attack on Iranian facilities is] the stupidest thing I have ever heard … It will be followed by a war with Iran. It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end.

[Attacking Iran] would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program. The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.

(Click here for a complete round-up of the stances U.S. military leaders past and present have taken on the topic.)

Let’s not forget that even the most successful attack on Iran’s enrichment facilities would only set back a hypothetical weapons program a few years, tops, and could have the maddening effect of conjuring the exact outcome it is designed to prevent. According to former US ambassador to the UN, Thomas Pickering,

[A military strike] has a very high propensity, in my view, of driving Iran in the direction of openly declaring and deciding, which it has not yet done according to our intelligence, to make a nuclear weapon to seemingly defend itself under what might look to them and others to be an unprovoked attack.

And in the words of General Michael Hayden, CIA Director from 2006-2009,

When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret.

Then there are the costs of an attack. In addition to the fact that an attack on Iranian enrichment facilities would no doubt kill thousands of innocent civilians, and is likely to spark a regional war of unforeseeable volatility, such actions would undoubtedly cause the price of oil to skyrocket. Some analysts say that we could see the price of gas at the pump as high as $5-$6 per gallon, straining already faltering European and American economies.

So let’s review: a military attack would unleash a whole new can of worms in the Middle East, slaughter civilians, upset the global economy, all while creating the conditions for a nuclear armed Iran. Hmm. Does this sound like much of an option to you?

Check and see if your senator is supporting the military option with bill S. Res. 380. Tell your representative to be clear: the only option that should be on the table is the diplomatic one.

Norman Solomon wanted us to share this message with Peace Action West supporters. Raul Grijalva is a progressive champion and another of our endorsed candidates for 2012.

It’s painfully obvious. If a government is imprisoning, torturing, and killing protesters, American weapons should never reach their hands.

Then why is the administration doing a runaround on Congress and selling arms to the government of Bahrain? 

Tell your representative to cosponsor the Arms Sales Responsibility Act to prevent arms sales to human rights-abusing governments.

As Amnesty International points out, not a single Bahraini official has been held accountable for torture, imprisonment and killings in response to peaceful protest. But the administration has decided that its ability to station a Navy fleet in Bahrain and have a regional counterweight to Iran is more important than holding the government accountable for detestable treatment of its own citizens.

To hold the US to its own rhetoric about democracy and human rights, Rep. Raul Grijalva has introduced the Arms Sales Responsibility Act, which would prohibit arms sales if there is a serious risk they would be used to abuse human rights.

Human rights must be universal, not based on what the US needs from a country’s leaders. Tell your representative to cosponsor the Arms Sales Responsibility Act today.

Radhika Sainath, a US citizen deported from Bahrain for her participation in protests, asked, “Why is the United States supporting the Bahraini police with tear gas and with weapons? You know, we want basic freedoms such as the ones that you have in the United States.”

Let’s show Radhika and others striving for democracy around the world that the people of the US are with them. Take action now.

The debate over the authorization bill this year basically boils down to a small group of Republicans who have gone off the deep end, and resorted to sneaky tactics to throw billions of dollars at nuclear weapons programs that even the Department of Energy and the Pentagon don’t think we need.

The bright side is that so many representatives were outraged by what the House Armed Services Committee had put in this bill, that they jumped into action with amendments. One congressional staffer told me they had never seen so many representatives all working on amendments to cut military and nuclear spending before. In fact, so many people were writing amendments, that Democrats ran out of ideas for things to cut! Here are some of the amendments about nuclear weapons that were offered.

New Los Alamos bomb plant

• Based on his SANE Act, Rep. Ed Markey introduced this amendment to strip out money for a new nuclear bomb plant at Los Alamos, along with Reps. Sanchez and Johnson. The Department of Energy says we don’t need the plant, and the appropriations committees had already agreed not to fund it. But Republicans used sneaky procedural tactics to block this amendment from even coming up for a vote, leaving $100 million for the plant in the authorization bill. Thankfully, we have already seen that there is bipartisan support for cutting funding for this bomb plant, so we will work to keep this money out of the final version of the budget.

New nuclear bomber

• This amendment, also by Rep. Markey with Reps. Welch and Conyers, would have delayed plans to start replacing our fleet of bomber planes to carry nuclear weapons. Delaying by 10 years would save up to $68 billion, money we really don’t need to spend on planes designed to fight 20th century wars. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated, 112-308. See the roll call here.

Blocking nuclear reductions

• A group of Republicans in Congress are fighting tooth and nail to turn back the clock to the Cold War arms race. A few of them are trying to use the defense bill to block the New START Treaty, which was ratified by a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and prevent President Obama from making progress toward getting rid of all nuclear weapons.
• Rep. Price’s amendment prohibits the president from reducing the nuclear arsenal and passed 241-179. See the roll call here.
• Another amendment from Reps. Rehberg and Lummis bans any reductions to the arsenal while also mandating that we must keep all legs of ‘the triad,’ the bombers, missiles and submarines that we’ve been using to carry our nukes since the Cold War. It also passed, 238-162. See the roll call here.

Blocking nonproliferation programs

• In a classic example of “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face,” Rep. Franks’ amendment blocks funds from being spent on important work to lock up dangerous nuclear material in Russia, until Russia promises to stop talking to countries we don’t like. Not cleaning up this material is very counterproductive as a “punishment,” since locking up this material will make the world a safer place for all of us, not just Russians. It passed, 241-181. See the roll call here.

Finally knowing what we spend

• Reps. Larsen and Loretta Sanchez introduced an amendment to make the Department of Energy and the Pentagon finally provide a total accounting of all the costs involved with maintaining and modernizing our nuclear weapons. They have never had to add those numbers up before, and having this information would be immensely helpful to us in our efforts to cut nuclear spending. This was adopted into the bill in an en bloc (group) amendment.

There were several other amendments that would have done good things, like slashing extra funding for nuclear weapons and restoring crucial safety regulations for nuclear facilities. But those were also blocked from coming up for a vote by the Republicans.

Iran

• The good news: Reps. Conyers, Ellison and Jones offered an amendment stating that nothing in the bill authorizes military force against Iran. This was adopted into the bill in an en bloc (group) amendment.
• The bad news: Rep. Barbara Lee offered an amendment to appoint a special envoy for US-Iran relations, giving diplomacy the patient attention it needs. In this hawkish House, it only received 77 votes. See the roll call here.

Military spending

• The good news: Colorado representatives Mike Coffman (R) and Jared Polis (D) teamed up on an amendment to remove permanent Brigade Combat Teams from Europe and replace them with a rotation force, saving money and reducing an unnecessary military presence abroad. The amendment passed, 226-196.  See the roll call here.
• The bad news: Despite caps put on the budget by the debt ceiling deal last year, Republicans in the House Armed Services Committee added $8 billion to the president’s request for the Pentagon (an already bloated budget). Reps. Barbara Lee and Barney Frank offered an amendment to eliminate the extra funding, but it failed, 170-252. See the roll call here.

The “global war on terror”

• Just bad news: A bipartisan group of representatives worked together on an amendment to fix problematic provisions passed last year authorizing indefinite military detention. The amendment would have stated that people captured in the US would not be subject to indefinite military detention. The amendment failed, 182-238. See the roll call here.
• Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers offered an amendment to prohibit “signature strike,” drone strikes based on patterns of behavior rather than knowing the identity of the targets. Given the number of innocent civilians killed in drone strikes, it’s high time for some oversight. Unfortunately, the amendment failed in a voice vote.

With the vast majority of Americans, including people of all political persuasions, supporting a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, it’s high time for Congress to catch up. A bipartisan group of representatives joined forces to put together an amendment to the defense authorization bill voted on this week that would have put the House of Representatives on the record supporting accelerated withdrawal. Reps. Jim McGovern (D-MA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Adam Smith (D-WA and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee), Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), and Chris Gibson (R-NY) did the painstaking legislative work of finding language everyone could agree on and getting the Democratic leadership on board.

The Republican leadership, however, refused to give the American people’s concerns a hearing on the House floor. They had put language in the NDAA that endorses keeping 68,000 troops on the ground until the end of 2014 (meaning no more withdrawals after this summer), and a “credible force” on the ground after that. They were determined to keep that language, and knew that the McGovern et al amendment would pass.

Rep. McGovern fought passionately against their refusal to allow a vote, holding up the Rules Committee proceedings for an hour in the face of harassment from Republican colleagues.

“Mr. Chairman I think we’ve gotten this, that Mr. McGovern is not happy. I think this is also behavior, that I wonder if people have been out drinking tonight, or whether they are mad or angry or incapable of controlling themselves, and I would question that tonight,” Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, the chairman of the GOP’s campaign committee, said of Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) at a late-night meeting of the House Rules Committee.

“I take offense to that,” McGovern said, according to a transcript of the exchange. “I have an amendment to the rule Mr. Chairman and I would say to the gentleman that you know, there are some issues worth fighting over and for me, ending this war is one of them. And I’m sorry the gentleman doesn’t think that —- take that very seriously.”

Sessions shot back: “Simply asked a question. If the shoe fits.”

Representatives slammed Republican intransigence on this issue on the House floor Thursday morning, including Democratic leaders Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Republican Armed Services Committee member Walter Jones. Rep. McGovern made a last-ditch effort on Thursday to use procedural rules to squeeze in a vote on the amendment, but ultimately Republicans succeeded in squelching the debate on what Rep. Smith rightly called the most important issue in the bill.

We knew there was no good reason for Republicans to block the vote and it came down to fear of letting the American people’s opposition to the war get a vote. CNN spoke to some Republican sources and confirmed as much:

Republicans were concerned the amendment could pass, according to two GOP congressional sources…

…One of the Republican sources stressed that there were a combination of factors for not allowing a vote on the timetable proposal, including “a lack of White House engagement.” GOP leaders expected a bloc of their own members to support the measure and they couldn’t rely on the White House to lobby Democrats against it.

The source stressed Republicans didn’t want to “roll the dice” and have a vote setting firm dates for the administration’s war policy, which would expose significant reservations about the president’s plan, which GOP leaders have largely supported.

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, who pushed for the vote on the timetable amendment with North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones, decried the decision to deny a vote on his proposal on Thursday. “What is the Republican leadership afraid of? Are they afraid a bipartisan majority of this House will vote to follow the will of the American people and change our Afghanistan policy?” he said.

The Republican leaders pulled a sneaky move by allowing a twenty-minute debate and vote on Rep. Barbara Lee’s Afghanistan amendment so they could claim to be giving the issue its due. However, they picked the amendment (which we strongly supported), which limits funding to safe and orderly withdrawal, because they knew its strong position would not have the same level of support. The amendment ultimately failed, 113-303, though it gained more votes than in previous years, including from a number of Republicans. See the roll call here.

While it’s disappointing after all of our grassroots and lobbying work to be denied a vote on the Afghanistan withdrawal amendment, it is a testament to the power of the organizing work the peace movement has done that we have pro-war Republicans running scared. Now we have to let them know this fight isn’t over.

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) joined the fringiest of the fringe this week with the comments he chose as a rousing closer to a fundraising speech (see the above video for the full local news report):

“I don’t know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States or not. But I do know this. That in his heart, he’s not an American. He’s just not an American.”

A supporter of Coffman’s, seeing nothing wrong with this statement, posted the audio on YouTube, offering us a glimpse of what he says behind closed doors. It’s a stark reminder that some people can get elected to office despite buying into xenophobia-inspired conspiracy theories and grotesque ideas about who decides what people deserve to be deemed American.

Thankfully for people in Colorado’s 6^th district, Coffman is vulnerable this election year. Peace Action West supporters can help elect Joe Miklosi, a wonderful pro-peace candidate who will represent smarter foreign policy values, and clearly bring more dignity and rationality to the office. Let’s show Coffman the cost of engaging in the lowest politics. Click here to donate to Joe Miklosi’s grassroots campaign. 

“I believe that it is time for Members of Congress to stand with seven out of ten Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan,” said Congresswoman Lee.  “There is no military solution in Afghanistan, which is why I am pushing Republican leadership to allow me to offer an amendment to the NDAA that would bring about a responsible and immediate end to the war in Afghanistan.  The amendment would end combat operations while protecting our troops by ensuring that any dollar directed to Afghanistan can only be spent for the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors.”

Congresswoman Lee was joined by Representatives Walter Jones (R-NC), Ron Paul (R-TX), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Janice Hahn (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Peter Welch (D-NY), and James McGovern (D-MA).  Congresswoman Lee thanked her colleagues for joining her at the press conference, noting that “the silence on Capitol Hill on this issue has been deafening.”

Ninety representatives joined Rep. Lee in sending a letter to President Obama calling on him to announce an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan at next week’s NATO summit. Read the letter and see the list of signers here.

On the heels of the announcement of a plan that leaves the door open to a large military presence in Afghanistan for another twelve years, this is an important time for Congress to make a statement.

Rep. Lee has an amendment that will be voted on TODAY that limits Afghanistan war funding to use for a safe and responsible withdrawal of our troops. Call the congressional switchboard today at 202-224-3121, ask for your representative, and ask him or her to vote YES on the Lee amendment to end the war.

Thank you to all of you who sent emails last week. Now, I’m asking you to join groups around the country in a national call-in day.

Call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ask for your representative’s office. When you’re connected, use this sample message as a guide and add your own words:

My name is [your name] and I live at [your address]. I oppose keeping US troops in Afghanistan for another 12 years. I strongly encourage [your representative's name]  to vote for amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act to speed up military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Then, click here to tell me how your call went.

Thank you for raising your voice.