INTERVIEW WITH CONGRESSMAN JIM MCGOVERN
Conducted by David Swanson, Progressive Democrats of America
January 22, 2007

In an exclusive interview conducted by David Swanson, Rep. McGovern commented on a range of issues – the full interview here:

Swanson: So, Congressman Jim McGovern, this is David Swanson from PDA, Progressive Democrats of America. And first of all I want to thank you for working with PDA, for coming to Town Hall Meetings, for coming to Camp Democracy in September. And as you know we are gathering signatures in support of your bill. And you had one bill last Congress and you are going to have a new one this Congress. The one that everybody’s heard about 4232, what did that bill do?

McGovern: Well, what that bill basically did is what the bill I’m going to introduce this year will do, and, some of the words have been changed a little bit in response to some of the questions that were raised. But essentially, what I believe and what we need to do, I think, is call for an immediate and safe and orderly withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq to be completed, within six months. That’s what all the experts have told me is necessary to be able to get everybody out in a safe and orderly way. And then beyond that my bill would then cut off all further Pentagon funding for the Iraq war. It would end the war. It would end the US occupation. It would still allow us to support UN efforts or regional efforts aimed at a political solution. It would enable us to support humanitarian aid and appropriate reconstruction aide. But essentially it would end US military involvement; it would end the US occupation; it would end the war. And I believe that’s the right thing for us to do.

Swanson: Now, it’s interesting that it cuts off the money. I know that cutting off the money was part of how the Vietnam War was ended. Why is that? If Congress tells the President to end the war, is the President not guaranteed to do it? Will he make an argument that he can proceed with the war if he so chooses unless Congress cuts off money?

McGovern: Well, we have a problem with this President and that is he doesn’t like to listen.

Swanson: I’ve noticed.

McGovern: Yeah. He lost the mid-term elections which were about people’s dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. People want this war to end. He has ignored the Iraq Study Group which gave him 72 recommendations on how to change course. He has ignored top generals who were serving over in Iraq and, when they disagree with him he either replaces them or they go into retirement.
So what do you do when you have a President who ignores all these things? The only thing you can do is to get Congress to condition, to withhold, or to cut off aide. That’s it. Congress controls the purse strings. And if the President doesn’t want to listen, if he doesn’t want to change course and in this instance the President wants to continue his failed policy but this time he wants to escalate it with more US forces over there – that’s the only option we have.
You mentioned before about how the Vietnam War came to an end, well that resolution that the United States Senate considered which was the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment (named after George McGovern and Mark Hatfield) received 39 votes. Didn’t receive a majority. Received 39 votes. Thirty-nine US Senators went on record as saying, “I want this war to end and I want to cut off funding.” That sent a powerful signal to the White House and other leaders in Congress that basically support for this war is eroding rapidly. They needed to come up with a plan to get out. And it may take that because this President doesn’t want to listen. And so I believe that the bill that I proposed is a good way to go.
But look, you’ve got other votes, you know, coming up very soon that people need to be mindful of. There’ll be a sense of Congress resolution that the Senate and the House will take up dealing with our opposition to the escalation of US forces in Iraq. Now, some people have been critical that the resolution won’t have teeth in it or just kind of a sense of Congress, meaning this is what Congress is thinking. But look, much as I wish it was much more, was much stronger, I’m going to support it and I think everybody should because we need to send a signal. This will be the first time in four years when the House and Senate will go on record as saying we disagree with the President. The Congress has basically been out to lunch the last four years. This will be the first time that Congress has anything mildly critical, to say to the White House with regard to this war.
Secondly, and coming up in the not too distant future, the President is going to submit to Congress a request for an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Essentially that is, they call it an emergency supplemental because the President misled the Congress and the people about what he needed for this war to fight this year. He’s running out of money so he needs more money. He’s asking for between $100 – $120 billion and I’m going to vote against it. And I think we should urge others to vote against it. And to me, the stronger that “no” vote is again, the stronger the pressure on the White House and the stronger the pressure on the leaderships of the House and the Senate to bring this war to a close.
And so look, we need to get serious here right now. We’ve been doing this for four years. This war has gone on longer than our involvement in WW II. It is time to step it up a notch and to urge Congress to finally live up to its constitutional responsibility.

Swanson: With the Democrats in the majority, you guys, you and your colleagues quite admirably have proposed that in general Congress should pay as you go.

McGovern: Right.

Swanson: That is, if you pass a spending bill you cut something somewhere else so that you pay for it so we aren’t further and further into debt as this President is inclined to go. These so-called “supplementals” that are now planned for 2007 and 2008 as so called “emergencies” are apparently outside of that . . .

McGovern: They are. That’s why this administration is, relies so heavily on them. I mean, they get around any kind of budgetary rules or restrictions or conditions. That has to change. I’ll be honest with you . . .

Swanson: Can it be changed?

McGovern: Well, I think the way it can be changed is for, I mean for the leadership of both the House and the Senate to say, “No more supplementals. No more supplementals. You want money for this war, then you go through the regular progress.” And we’re going to have to pay for every cent. And if that means raising taxes, then President Bush can get on TV and ask for a war tax. But we are not going to put it on a credit card and put it on the backs of our kids and our grandkids and our great-grandkids. And, that’s the kind of, the kind of response I’m hoping that they’d receive from the leaders of the House and the Senate.
One of the things that has helped to aid President Bush in keeping this war going is the fact that by and large with the exception of a small sliver of our population here in the United States, most people are not sacrificing for this war. Most people’s kids are not over in Iraq fighting, and when people have been given tax cuts, at a time of war, you aren’t even paying for it. You don’t feel the price of it in your tax bill. Well that’s just, that’s irresponsible. And, so we need to insist, I think, that there by no more supplementals and that we pay as you go on this war.

Swanson: Now, correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t Congress already pass a bill saying that in 2008 forward there would be no more supplementals, that the war would be part of the regular budget, and . . .

McGovern: We did, we did. I’m also on the budget committee, I’m on the rules committee, and the Pentagon testified before the budget committee that while they expect to go through the regular budgetary process and make a request for funds for 2008, that they’ll probably come back and ask for one anyway. And I think that it needs to be crystal clear, “No you won’t.” And we’re not going to receive requests for that.
And I’ll just say one other thing, too. And this is something I feel very, very strongly about. I don’t want this, I don’t want to be talking about emergency supplementals, you know, in 2008 or 2009. I want this war over! I don’t want the next Presidential election to be about the war in Iraq. I want this war over. I want us out of Iraq. I want us, I want the end time posted before the next Presidential election.
This is George Bush’s war. It has gone on for four years, longer than we’ve been involved in World War II. We’ve spent over $500 billion on this war. We’ve lost over 3,000 of our citizens, tens of thousands wounded, countless Iraqi civilians killed. I mean enough! Enough!
You know, Bush, he started it, he deceived us. The time has come to end it on his watch. It is not right for us, to our soldiers, to our country, you know, to the Iraqi people. It’s not right to the next President whoever he or she may be, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, to allow George Bush to kick the ball down the field and dump the war in Iraq, on somebody else. We cannot allow that to happen.
And Congress needs to get its backbone up, and have a little steel in our spine and say, “Look, what we want to talk about right now is how we get out. That’s what we are interested in. And future funding, is going to be based on our withdrawing from Iraq, not our being there, for the next, 5, 10, 20, 30 years, as Bush has implied that we might be.”

Swanson: Very well said. Last Congress there were a bunch of Congress members who did have enough backbone to co-sponsor your bill, but there was also a very strange sort of resistance to it that you didn’t hear much outside of the beltway but that you did hear in Congress which was that somehow safely bringing our troops home and keeping them alive is , well, anti-troops, opposing our troops. Can you explain this to me?

McGovern: Well, here’s the evolution of a lot of members of Congress on the war. I mean, you have people that voted for the war and then they realized it was a mistake because they were lied to. I voted against the war. A lot of my colleagues voted for the war. Then they came out against the war and they found out that, when you get up before an audience and you say, you know, “I think we need to figure out a way to get out of the war” – that was an applause line.
But they weren’t willing to go the next step which was to specify, how we’re going to do it, you know, and say, “I’m going to vote to do it.” And, they were always worried that, you know, Karl Rove or somebody would, would take such a stand or say, “You’re against the troops,” and use it in the next political campaign.
Well, to me, if you want to protect our troops, bring them home! If you want to protect our troops, get them out of a situation where they are refereeing a civil war. If you want to protect our troops, make sure they get the health care that they deserve, Make sure that their families who have been left behind aren’t living in substandard housing. If you want to protect our troops, then you’ve got to end this war. And, I think that’s the response to that.
This notion that we want to cut and run . . . nobody’s talking about cutting and running. What I’m talking about is doing what is sensible, what is right, what is in the best interests of our people, what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people, and what is the correct thing to do.
And, in Washington, unlike anywhere else in the country, people obsess over politics. Every vote you cast, you know, people think in terms of, “Is it the politically correct thing for me to do?” They think in terms of political expediency, in terms of the next election and the next commercial.
Well, look – this is war! People are dying. The hell with politics right now. And, you know, the heck with this notion that we need to find some sort of way, some way to save face. We should be worried more about saving lives.
Again, we’ve been in this war now for over four years. At some point we all better understand that this is really a tragedy. This is the worst moral, political, diplomatic, military blunder in the history of our country. And we need to end it because being here ten years from now and ending it is to make it that much worse, not that much better.
And so let’s force Bush to take the responsibility. You know, he can, I’m sure, with his speech writers and his spin masters, figure out a way to justify this where he can claim whatever he wants to claim, but the bottom line is we need to end this war, we need to get our troops home, we need to cut off all funding for the Pentagon in terms of military operations over there and let’s focus then on how do we fund and support efforts, regional efforts, Iraqi efforts, UN efforts to find a political solution that will make life for the Iraqi people much better in the future.

Swanson: Well, United for Peace and Justice and Progressive Democrats of America and a million other groups are going to be lobbying on Monday, the 29th, for this and other bills after marching on Washington on Saturday. And I understand you are going to have the new bill introduced in time for that.

McGovern: Right.

Swanson: And hopefully it will have a number on it. And that it is somewhat different. That it actually specifies using existing funds to pay for the withdrawal of the troops and then cutting off further funds.

McGovern: Right.

Swanson: Where do those existing funds come from? If they claim to have blown the last $70 billion already, I mean, do we have to pick a couple of bombers not to build, or where does that money come from?

McGovern: First of all, from all accounts there is the money to do this. And if there is not the money, they can come back and ask Congress for the money. But we are not talking $100 or $120 billion.

Swanson: Right.

McGovern: That’s what he’s asking for. There is a lot of unused money that is in the pipeline. That’s why the President is saying he can, you know, move forward on this escalation without Congress’s approval no matter what Congress does. Look, if you have money for an escalation, take that money and use it for withdrawal. It’s that simple.
I’m not – no one is advocating that we just cut off all funds and leave our troops there with nothing. What I’m advocating is that we provide the troops the protection they need to get out in a safe and orderly way.
And to be honest with you, my sense is that if the United States were to announce that in fact our occupation is coming to an end, that we are no longer going to be involved in a war in Iraq, I think not only within Iraq but around the world there would be this collective sigh of relief.
I also think it will be a lot easier to achieve a political solution in Iraq amongst the various factions without the United States running the whole country. You also remove the excuse for Al Quaeda or any other outside group who is now trying to peddle their way into Iraq. You will remove the excuse for them to be there.
No one knows what ultimately happens when we leave. My sense is it will change the dynamic in a way where we can actually get some of the other players in the region to play a constructive role. And also be able to get people talking to the various sides who can actually bridge some of these divides in a way that we can’t do.
Look, there is no nice, clean, wonderful, beautiful way to end this. This is a mistake. This war was a mistake. And sometimes you make mistakes that are so catastrophic that, you know, there are bad consequences. I think unfortunately this is one of those mistakes. But I do believe that if there is any chance to move the country in a different direction toward a political solution you have to change the dynamic, and the only way to change the dynamic is to end the US occupation and that’s what I want to do.

Swanson: Absolutely. You’ve got a couple of little exceptions in the bill that seem sensible. . .

McGovern: Right.

Swanson: but then we know the President we’re dealing with. And there is an exception to keep troops to guard the embassy. . .

McGovern: Right.

Swanson: in Baghdad, and keep US Army Corps of Engineers who are working on reconstruction, and I have no idea how many that is at present. How, what is to prevent the President from saying, “Well, we’re going to need 85,000 troops to guard the embassy?”

McGovern: Well, I think at that point, Congress would step in and then cap the number of troops. We’re going to have an embassy in Iraq and given the fact that we have become such a hated figure in Iraq, you do need to be able to allow for an exception for there to be protection of our embassy.
But protection of our embassy does not mean in any way, shape, or form that you can be engaged in combat activities other than to protect the Ambassador from being shot or for the embassy from being blown up. I mean, it does not mean you go to Fallujah and aide anybody and perform a military sweep of that town or any other place. Protecting the embassy is very specific. Protecting the embassy. That’s it.
So, if the President were to use that to say, “Well, I’m going to just, you know, I’m going to escalate our forces and we’re going to be involved in combat activities other than protecting the embassy” that would be in violation of the law. But if he tried in any way to do something crazy with it, I think Congress should call him on it.
And again, I don’t want the Army Corps of Engineers fighting, they are not combat troops. They are there to help rebuild much of what we’ve blown up, quite frankly.

Swanson: Right.

McGovern: And, that is something I really strongly believe. If we can assist in reconstruction, I think that that is something we should try to do. We blew the country up. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars destroying the place. It’s worth us spending a couple of bucks to help rebuild the place. But I don’t want Halliburton to do it, and I would like it to be mostly Iraqi civilians doing it. But I do believe reconstruction is something we should still be willing to support. And again, if it looked like the President were trying to turn people who are experts in building bridges and replacing them with people who are experts in building bombs, again, I think he would be violating the law. But it would be something Congress would call him on.
Look, if people go along with what I am saying here, it is because we want this war to be ended. And I think it would be very difficult for the President to be able to continue his policies. It’s not possible if my bill were to be enacted. I mean basically it would end this thing.
Now look, I need to weigh what we ultimately would like here. Going back to what you mentioned about the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment to end the war in Vietnam, the 39 Senators that voted to end the war, I think what we’d like here is the administration to become a willing participant in bringing this war to an end. And it would make it easier and it would make it better if we can get the President to finally admit that this was a mistake and cooperate with us to get our troops home, to end our occupation. And to the extent we can demonstrate that our, that Congress is opposed to this by voting against these appropriations bills, I think that’s the kind of signal that may be necessary to get him to change his point of view.

Swanson: Well, it, it seems like you’ve got a majority of Americans with you and you’ve got a majority of our troops on active duty with you, but the problem appears to be not just the White House being against this but the corporate media being against this. And, I mean, there is a phenomenon that I refer to as “Milbankism” in honor of Dana Milbank. He wrote a column recently, you know, ridiculing all of the toothless resolutions coming from the Democrats and failing to mention the bills like yours that have teeth. And so, you take, the Congress members who are out there, leading, introducing bills that strongly stand for majority opinion and do something and have teeth and you ignore them, you black them out. They are not, they are not on the radar screen.

McGovern: Right.

Swanson: And then you ridicule the other stuff. And then the Democrats are weak and useless. How do you change that?

McGovern: Well, first of all, I’m not here to defend toothless resolutions, but even the toothless resolution that may come up that puts Congress on record as being opposed to the escalation – if we can get a majority of the House and Senate to vote for a sense of Congress resolution saying that we oppose this escalation, that is a very powerful signal.

Swanson: Yeah.

McGovern: So if there is any defense for toothless resolutions, I will tell you that I would rather have a toothless resolution at least that says that we are opposed to the President’s policy, get everybody on record, than not one at all. So we need to support that.

Swanson: Absolutely.

McGovern. Secondly, one of the things that has always troubled me, and I saw over the week-end in the Washington Post, a big half-page op-ed by Henry Kissinger, sometimes I think some who inhabit our editorial pages of our major newspapers, get tied up in the politics, what is politically correct, and what is the moderate view, what is sensible, all these different kind of tests that they have – sometimes they overlook the obvious: If you want to end the war, you end the war.
But to have editorial pages filled with people like Henry Kissinger who, in my opinion, is as close to an American war criminal as you can get, to get up and talk about the President’s escalation as this bold move forward . . . I mean, Henry Kissinger has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue that he has ever had any involvement with. He was wrong on Vietnam, I mean dead wrong on Vietnam. He was wrong on Chile; overthrowing Allende and supporting the brutal dictator Pinochet. He was wrong on East Timor where he supported the Indonesian military going into East Timor massacring thousands and thousands of people. And he is wrong on the war in Iraq. He’s been wrong on everything. And yet, we’re supposed to listen to him, that he’s the guy? People like him who’ve been consistently wrong are the people who somehow are supposed to shape our foreign policy. Give me a break. Those guys should go into early retirement. In Henry Kissinger’s case, I mean he’s really, really old, so he should just go away.
They are wrong. So, we need some bold thinking on the editorial pages, too. But rather than trying to formulate what seems to be the politically, acceptable way to go, look – the American people, you are right, are way ahead of us. I mean, they are shocked that we are not more shocked. They are horrified that we are still twiddling our thumbs. And, we just finished a week-end in Iraq which was one of the deadliest week-ends for American forces since we’ve been there.
I mean, they are saying, “What are you guys doing? Stop the talking. Stop the political spin. You know, stop the intellectualizing. Do what’s right. Bring our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, home.” So, that’s what they’re saying, and let’s get about the business of trying to rebuild our image around the world and support efforts in Iraq that are aimed at achieving a political solution so there may be some hope for a better future for the people of Iraq.

Swanson: So is it helpful from your point of view if people write letters to the editor and call talk shows and demonstrate in front of media outlets, and if people come to Washington this Saturday, the 27th, and march in huge numbers. Is that a helpful thing?

McGovern: Absolutely. Absolutely. OK. The fact that we are where we are right now; the fact that we have now a lot of members of Congress who are introducing bills to end the war in Iraq in one form or another; the fact that we have a Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate . . . we’re going to have a first vote on a resolution opposing the escalation; the fact that these things are happening and we’re going to have more hearings and oversight on Iraq – that is not as a result of just Congress getting it. It is the result of grassroots pressure. It is the result of citizens coming to Washington and lobbying their members of Congress. It is the result of letters and emails and phone calls. It is the result of demonstrations that have occurred in various cities and towns across the country. It is the result of people calling in to talk radio, writing letters to the editor. It is the result of very incredible passionate mothers and fathers and husbands and wives whose loved ones are over in Iraq or who have been killed in Iraq coming forward and talking about the need to bring this war to an end. It is about the soldiers who were here in Washington a couple of weeks ago on active duty expressing their opposition to this war in Iraq.
That is getting us to where we are. So it is important for people to come to these demonstrations, to come and protest, to come and (unintelligible). To all those who have been doing that, PDA and so many other incredible groups, all those who have been doing that, I know it is not easy. It takes courage to dissent in times of war. I don’t care whether you are a member of Congress, or whether you are a school teacher or a factory worker or whether you work in a grocery store, or whether you are a lawyer or a doctor or nurse or whatever . . . to oppose your country’s policy, policies in time of war is not easy. We all. we all hesitate to take that step. But when your country is engaged in a war that you think is wrong and deplorable, you have an obligation to do so.
When I talk to audiences who come down here to protest the war, I address them as “patriots,” because clearly it is the truest form of patriotism to speak up when your country is going in the wrong direction. And we do it because we love this country and we want it to be better. You know, we are a hell of a lot better than what is on display in George Bush’s war in Iraq. So if we’re going to change this it’s going to require the American people demanding that it change.
The war in Vietnam ended because the people demanded that it end. The war in Iraq is going to end only when the people of the United States demand that it is going to come to an end.
. . . you know, I’m grateful for those who are coming to Washington. If you can’t come to Washington, you can call, you can write, you can email, or you can do a little mini-demonstration in your own city and town, but it is important to be counted and it is important for your voices to be heard, because . . . And I’ll say this, and in fairness to some members of Congress, you know, none of us are mind readers. So if you don’t hear from your constituents, then there is not a lot of incentive to change. It is when you hear from that constituents, you see these members of Congress beginning to change, so we need to keep that pressure going.

Swanson: Well, that’s great encouragement and I appreciate it and we will pass it along. And you are part of it. And I understand that you are going to be going on the road with PDA and doing an event with Cindy Sheehan at some time in the near future. That’s absolutely wonderful, and we could use a few more voices in Congress telling people to turn out and be heard.

McGovern: Well, the good, the good news is that each and every day there are more people in Congress that are coming forward, and that really is a tribute to the grassroots, to organizations like PDA and so many others that have been out there from the very beginning. But, slowly but surely, we are winning one vote at a time. We are winning more and more votes our way. And, I, and so we need to keep the fight going and I think if we do, at the end of the day we are going to be successful, and to me success is ending this war before George Bush leaves the White House.

Swanson Well, we appreciate everything you are doing. I don’t want to take up any more of your time, but we will see you this week-end in Washington.

McGovern: Good, All right.

Swanson: Thanks, keep up the fight.

McGovern: We’ll talk to you.

Swanson: OK.