90 Congressional Candidates and National Organizations Oppose War Spending No Matter What Lipstick Is Applied to It
Sixty-six congressional candidates and 24 national organizations are opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter what unrelated measures are packaged into the same bill, and no matter whether the bill appears likely to pass or not. This position contrasts strongly with that of most incumbent congress members who "oppose" and "criticize" the wars. The new Coalition Against War Spending is inviting more candidates, including all incumbents, and national organizations to join. The 66 candidates who have already signed on are from 25 different states, and include 22 Greens, 19 Democrats, 19 Libertarians, 3 Independents, 1 Republican, 1 Socialist, and 1 Peace and Freedom Party member (and more may be added to the website by the time you read this). Fifty-six are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and 10 for the Senate.
The U.S. Senate passed $33.5 billion to escalate the war in Afghanistan on Thursday, and the House is likely to take up the same bill in some form following next week's recess.
Members of the Coalition Against War Spending do not all agree with each other on many topics, including their reasons for opposing war spending. But they all back this short statement:
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans over $1 trillion in direct costs, and over $3 trillion altogether. At a time when our national debt exceeds $13 trillion, we can no longer afford these wars. It's time for Congress to reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely home."
SIGNED BY CANDIDATES AND ORGANIZATIONS at http://caws.us