2/5/2009 11:29 PM
Pete Shell wrote:
I wonder what people think about this Resolution? Is it too weak?
From: Susan Harman Subject: [PDA Impeachment Group] Re: Rep. Barbara Lee Asks Colleagues to Reject Unconstitutional 3-Years-of-War Treaty Please help get the word out about this HRes. Please call your Rep and ask her/him to co-sponsor. Perhaps Congress is growing a backbone. Susan
On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:16 AM, pdatimcarpenter wrote:
action for IOT Rep. Barbara Lee Asks Colleagues to Reject Unconstitutional 3-Years-of-War Treaty
CO-SPONSOR H.RES. 72, EXPRESS DISAPPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ
Current Co-sponsors: Filner, Grijalva, Jackson-Lee, Lewis (GA), Stark, Woolsey
Dear Colleague:
I invite you to join me as a co-sponsor of H. Res. 72, a resolution I recently introduced disapproving of the U.S.-Iraq agreement regarding troop withdrawal reached in Baghdad on November 17, 2008. The purpose of the resolution is to provide a vehicle through which House members can register their support or opposition to an agreement that was never formally submitted to them for their consideration by the Bush Administration.
H. Res. 72 is substantially identical to the resolution I introduced in the waning days of the 110th Congress, but is strengthened by additional language that makes clear that absent congressional approval the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities During Their Temporary Presence in Iraq should be regarded as merely advisory in nature and that Congress should not consider itself obligated to appropriate any of the funds necessary to carry out the terms of the Agreement.
H.Res. 72 will enable Members to register their concerns regarding the form or substance of the agreement, or both. If you would like to co-sponsor, please contact Gregory Berry (Gregory.Berry@mail.house.gov) or Scott Exner (Scott.Exner@mail.house.gov) at 5-2661. (Text Attached)
3/17/2009 1:16 PM
Jon wrote:
The purpose of the resolution is to provide a vehicle through which House members can register their support or opposition to an agreement that was never formally submitted to them for their consideration by the Bush Administration . Reply to this
6/29/2009 3:51 AMDonald Stahl wrote:
As a Truther, I ask readers of this blog to click on and read: "An Appeal to the Anti-War Movement" at
7/9/2009 9:53 AM
laura lockwood wrote:
RE: actions/demos for 2009/10: I missed the deadline to submit an idea for a proposal...that being that we do some CD (civil disobedience) this coming year to get press. The demos and marches last year garnered little press, if any. Without press coverage, it's really not worth all the hard work and money. And, I suggest we utilize YouTube as much as possible to create and generate our own press.
Looking forward to meeting and working with you this weekend!
7/9/2009 10:50 PM
Mark Mateja wrote:
Thanks to all for posting these action proposals. I second Mark Stansbery's point on a counter-recruitment national foundation, we have been doing this in Erie for awhile, and I would like the movement to consider creating a national organization to support the troops who put their humanity over duty with legal and financial resources as well. Putting them on paid speaking tours is one way to compensate for the loss of income and build the movement at the same time. Why not a debt relief fund as well (Still would be cheaper than elections.)
A couple of thoughts re: the focus and timing of the fall actions. I support some local and/or national mass actions in the fall, but I would like to see the actions built around US and not the legislative cycles for a change. I'm not always opposed to lobbying, and have done a little, but its level of failure since 05 and 06 warrants its deemphasis (more troops and a larger theater of war than under Bush and a Rep. Congress!) A case in point is the 21st CD election of Dahlkemper(D) over English (R). Dahlkemper spoke against both Iraq and the global war on terror at an Erie Peace Initiative forum during the primaries, then her first vote in Jan. was for the Gaza Invasion Resolution, and for all the subsequent war funding bills. So they do listen to us and do understand our positions, but vote for war anyway, because that is the institutional function of Congress, that is, war is not a legislative problem, but a social and political one. Can't ask that poor chicken to lay a duck egg, might hurt itself!
To Lenny- I'm not whether or not 9/11 was an inside job has much bearing on people's support for the war. When it comes up in discussions, if at all, the gov't version of 9/11 doesn't seem to have much more credibility than the JFK version. I think advancing understanding of why 9/11 was not the impetus is more the task of the times.
Looking Forward to seeing you.
Mark Mateja Erie Peace Initiative Erie Pa Reply to this
7/20/2009 10:30 PMDonald Stahl wrote:
The information was addressed to Lenny, not to me, but it was nevertheless shared with everyone on this internet thing, and so I think it not inapropos to comment on it. "I'm not whether or not 9/11 was an inside job has much bearing on people's support for the war," is very difficult for me to understand. Could you be more explicit as to why "you're not?" Reply to this
I wonder what people think about this Resolution? Is it too weak?
From: Susan Harman
Subject: [PDA Impeachment Group] Re: Rep. Barbara Lee Asks Colleagues to Reject Unconstitutional 3-Years-of-War Treaty
Please help get the word out about this HRes. Please call your Rep and ask her/him to co-sponsor. Perhaps Congress is growing a backbone.
Susan
On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:16 AM, pdatimcarpenter wrote:
action for IOT
Rep. Barbara Lee Asks Colleagues to Reject Unconstitutional 3-Years-of-War Treaty
CO-SPONSOR H.RES. 72, EXPRESS DISAPPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ
Current Co-sponsors: Filner, Grijalva, Jackson-Lee, Lewis (GA), Stark, Woolsey
Dear Colleague:
I invite you to join me as a co-sponsor of H. Res. 72, a resolution I recently introduced disapproving of the U.S.-Iraq agreement regarding troop withdrawal reached in Baghdad on November 17, 2008. The purpose of the resolution is to provide a vehicle through which House members can register their support or opposition to an agreement that was never formally submitted to them for their consideration by the Bush Administration.
H. Res. 72 is substantially identical to the resolution I introduced in the waning days of the 110th Congress, but is strengthened by additional language that makes clear that absent congressional approval the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities During Their Temporary Presence in Iraq should be regarded as merely advisory in nature and that Congress should not consider itself obligated to appropriate any of the funds necessary to carry out the terms of the Agreement.
H.Res. 72 will enable Members to register their concerns regarding the form or substance of the agreement, or both. If you would like to co-sponsor, please contact Gregory Berry (Gregory.Berry@mail.house.gov) or Scott Exner (Scott.Exner@mail.house.gov) at 5-2661. (Text Attached)
Sincerely,
BARBARA LEE
Member of Congress
Reply to this
Noam Chomsky wrote an illuminating article (here: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/20424) in Z magazine about the Obama Administration and the hawks he has selected. It also has a good analysis of Iraq, Afhanistan and Pakistan.
Reply to this
The purpose of the resolution is to provide a vehicle through which House members can register their support or opposition to an agreement that was never formally submitted to them for their consideration by the Bush Administration .
Reply to this
As a Truther, I ask readers of this blog to click on and read: "An Appeal to the Anti-War Movement" at
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060817094039227
Reply to this
RE: actions/demos for 2009/10: I missed the deadline to submit an idea for a proposal...that being that we do some CD (civil disobedience) this coming year to get press. The demos and marches last year garnered little press, if any. Without press coverage, it's really not worth all the hard work and money. And, I suggest we utilize YouTube as much as possible to create and generate our own press.
Looking forward to meeting and working with you this weekend!
Thanks, Laura
Reply to this
Thanks to all for posting these action proposals. I second Mark Stansbery's point on a counter-recruitment national foundation, we have been doing this in Erie for awhile, and I would like the movement to consider creating a national organization to support the troops who put their humanity over duty with legal and financial resources as well. Putting them on paid speaking tours is one way to compensate for the loss of income and build the movement at the same time. Why not a debt relief fund as well (Still would be cheaper than elections.)
A couple of thoughts re: the focus and timing of the fall actions. I support some local and/or national mass actions in the fall, but I would like to see the actions built around US and not the legislative cycles for a change. I'm not always opposed to lobbying, and have done a little, but its level of failure since 05 and 06 warrants its deemphasis (more troops and a larger theater of war than under Bush and a Rep. Congress!) A case in point is the 21st CD election of Dahlkemper(D) over English (R). Dahlkemper spoke against both Iraq and the global war on terror at an Erie Peace Initiative forum during the primaries, then her first vote in Jan. was for the Gaza Invasion Resolution, and for all the subsequent war funding bills. So they do listen to us and do understand our positions, but vote for war anyway, because that is the institutional function of Congress, that is, war is not a legislative problem, but a social and political one.
Can't ask that poor chicken to lay a duck egg, might hurt itself!
To Lenny- I'm not whether or not 9/11 was an inside job has much bearing on people's support for the war. When it comes up in discussions, if at all, the gov't version of 9/11 doesn't seem to have much more credibility than the JFK version. I think advancing understanding of why 9/11 was not the impetus is more the task of the times.
Looking Forward to seeing you.
Mark Mateja
Erie Peace Initiative
Erie Pa
Reply to this
The information was addressed to Lenny, not to me, but it was nevertheless shared with everyone on this internet thing, and so I think it not inapropos to comment on it. "I'm not whether or not 9/11 was an inside job has much bearing on people's support for the war," is very difficult for me to understand. Could you be more explicit as to why "you're not?"
Reply to this