Skip to main content

By David Swanson

On Sunday, April 11, 2010, Congressman Bill Delahunt hosted a public forum in Falmouth, Mass., on the question of whether or not he should vote for another $33 billion to escalate war in Afghanistan.  Delahunt was honoring a commitment he had made to Cape Codders for Peace and Justice following a sit-in in his office. 

Two pro- and two anti-war speakers were scheduled to speak.  But Delahunt put out a press release announcing only the two pro-war speakers, and the day before the event disinvited one of the anti-war speakers, Chris Hellman, and communicated that neither of them would be included.  After a flurry of Emails and phone calls made clear that this new plan would not be accepted easily, the speakers were re-invited.

Prior to the event, Delahunt said that he would not be announcing his decision that day, but that he would announce it at least 10 days before the vote.  He said that he craved the attention that comes from not announcing how you will vote, as if the attention he gets matters more than the lives he funds the taking of.  One of Delahunt's staffers, also chatting prior to the event, said that the Congressman had worried about making his recent announcement of his coming retirement, because he had thought that he would get less attention and the phone would ring less if he were a lame duck, but that happily he gets even more attention now.  And you thought our elected officials governed for the greater human good out of selfless devotion? 

In Delahunt's opening remarks (see video), he said that he would be announcing his decision on the war supplemental vote "in the not too distant future and far in advance of the actual vote."  Later, during the question and answer session, someone invited the congressman to an event on May 3rd and he said that he would probably have voted by then.

I was the first panelist to speak on Sunday, and I had time to present some short selections of my complete remarks, which the congressman told me he had read:




Next to speak was Chris Hellman,  communications liason for the National Priorities Project, who focused on the question of financial costs of the war in Afghanistan:

Thomas Barfield and Joe Wippl were the pro-war speakers, but Wipple -- as it turned out -- largely opposed the war.  Could the congressman not find anyone who was more of a war supporter?  Or did he prefer to have Wippl on the panel despite his opposition? 

Barfield is  Professor of Anthropology, Boston University and President of the American Institute of Afghanistan Studies.  Here's his video.  He was the most supportive of the war and its escalation.  Wippl is Director of the Center for International Relations, Boston University and a former CIA officer.  Here's his video.

Although Delahunt did not announce his decision on spending another $33 billion, his comments at the forum were largely anti-war.  At one point he asked the panelists: "Does a counterinsurgency campaign work when you don't have a local partner that has credibility?"  All four panelists replied "No."  Here's video.

Delahunt has said that he wants to obey the President, but at this event insisted that he agreed with my statement that war powers belong in Congress.

A couple of other highlights from the questions and answers include:

Why Do They Hate Us?

and

What Have We Done?

And here's organizer Diane Turco asking Delahunt to commit to voting No:

Can you help give Congressman Delahunt some attention and keep his phone ringing? Ask him to vote No on $33 billion to escalate the war.  Call (202) 225-3111.

Add what he tells you to this whip list:

DefundWar.org

Originally posted to David Swanson on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 04:09 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site