Strongest Antiwar Statement Yet from a Congressional Candidate
By David Swanson
In this local TV news interview (video),
we see Virginia Fifth District Democratic nominee for Congress Lawrence
Gaughan say, "We need to get back to the Constitution on the issue of
war, and I will never authorize the executive to use force when there is
no direct or imminent threat to our national security here on our
soil."
I'm not aware of a stronger statement from any candidate for Congress.
Virginia's Fifth District is currently misrepresented by Republican Robert Hurt who on Thursday voted against blocking funds for a new war on Iraq:
Lee (D-CA)- Amendment No. 31 - Prohibits funds from being used to conduct combat operations in Iraq. – REJECTED 165 – 250
Twice:
Lee (D-CA)-
Amendment No. 33 - Prohibits funds from being used pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
– REJECTED 182 – 231
Prior to Hurt, VA-05 was misrepresented by Democrat Tom Perriello, an
enthusiastic warmonger who recently moved to the State Department from
the Center for American Progress, which is advocating for missile strikes on Iraq.
Prior to Perriello, this district was embarrassed and disgraced by Democrat turned Republican Virgil Goode.
When people voted for Perriello (and Obama) in 2008, many blindly
followed a party line, and many fantasized that they were electing an
anti-war representative.
Many imagined Hurt was hopeless in this regard, although he did prove willing in the end to oppose missile strikes into Syria.
Now, as it happens, there appears to be an opportunity to vote for
someone who is actually running on an antiwar platform, not just a
platform of being from a different party than Bush and Cheney. And what
a platform!
It's quite common to say you'll only back wars when "U.S. national
interests are at stake" or when the U.S. is threatened, but those
phrases can usually be defined to mean anything at all, including U.S.
troops halfway around the globe getting into a shoot out. That's not
what Gaughan has said. He has said there must be a threat to the United
States in the United States. That's a rejection of at least the past 70 years of U.S. war making.
It's also common to claim that one will take a decent position
against wars if asked by the President. That's not what Gaughan has
said. He has said that he will abide by the Constitution, which does
not allow presidents to make wars, and that he will not permit the
executive to wage wars except under the narrow circumstances described.
We're not going to find better than this around here for a long, long time to come, and I doubt anybody can find better elsewhere in the country.
I therefore suggest that wherever you live, you consider supporting putting this man in Congress.
--
David Swanson wants you to declare peace at http://WorldBeyondWar.org His new book is War No More: The Case for Abolition. He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for http://rootsaction.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.
Sign up for occasional important activist alerts here http://davidswanson.org/signup
Sign up for articles or press releases here http://davidswanson.org/lists
This email may be unlawfully
collected, held, and read by the NSA which violates our freedoms using
the justification of immoral, illegal wars absurdly described as being
somehow for freedom.
david swanson
